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'm not sure what a "jerkoff stat" is, but my guess is it's a phrase you throw around when numbers you're confronted with disprove your predetermined position. Am I getting close? Good grief man, use your head.
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
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'm not sure what a "jerkoff stat" is, but my guess is it's a phrase you throw around when numbers you're confronted with disprove your predetermined position. Am I getting close? Good grief man, use your head.
Like I said a few pages back, i know two people who have these things installed on their cars after a DUI conviction, and it works for them. They are embarrassed about it, and either get a ride with friends or take a cab. That comment was ignored though. There's no sense in even discussing it with some folks who have their mind made up no matter what...even if they dont know much about something. I doubt there's much info on the success of these devices, but I could be wrong.
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'm not sure what a "jerkoff stat" is, but my guess is it's a phrase you throw around when numbers you're confronted with disprove your predetermined position. Am I getting close? Good grief man, use your head.
Like I said a few pages back, i know two people who have these things installed on their cars after a DUI conviction, and it works for them. They are embarrassed about it, and either get a ride with friends or take a cab. That comment was ignored though. There's no sense in even discussing it with some folks who have their mind made up no matter what...even if they dont know much about something. I doubt there's much info on the success of these devices, but I could be wrong.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studies indicate that the ignition interlock programs reduce recidivism among DWI offenders by as much as 90%. Other studies indicate that anywhere between one-third and half of all DWIs are committed by repeat offenders.
So...you do the math. Sounds like a worthwhile program to me.
But some here have painted themselves into a corner where they will only accept regulations that, at the outset, are airtight and perfectly effective. This of course leaves two options: a DWI machine in every car, or, complete incapacitation. Or, in other words, Orwellian supervision or Draconian gulags.
Gun rights? Bill of Rights trumps all.
DWI enforcement? What's "cruel and unusual punishment?"
Funny how the Bill of Rights fades in relevance for some people, depending on the issue.
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
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'm not sure what a "jerkoff stat" is, but my guess is it's a phrase you throw around when numbers you're confronted with disprove your predetermined position. Am I getting close? Good grief man, use your head.
It is a jerkoff stat. What are the numbers for people convicted of DWI's...not given a free pass out of jail...and then drive on their own conviction when their proper penalty is served? My guess is there's very little difference if any at all.
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'm not sure what a "jerkoff stat" is, but my guess is it's a phrase you throw around when numbers you're confronted with disprove your predetermined position. Am I getting close? Good grief man, use your head.
Exactly. And he dismisses stats from various University's and organizations as 'speculation and mumbo jumbo'.
It's what people do when they're incapable of admitting they're wrong.
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'm not sure what a "jerkoff stat" is, but my guess is it's a phrase you throw around when numbers you're confronted with disprove your predetermined position. Am I getting close? Good grief man, use your head.
Exactly. And he dismisses stats from various University's and organizations as 'speculation and mumbo jumbo'.
It's what people do when they're incapable of admitting they're wrong.
Because I'm simply not wrong. Statistics can be bent anyway you want them to be and anyone can translate them anyway they see fit.
Statistics can be bent anyway you want them to be and anyone can translate them anyway they see fit.
You've brought nothing to the table except your own personal opinions/fantasies. If you can't admit that you're wrong about anything and choose to carry on like a petulant child instead, then so be it.
Statistics can be bent anyway you want them to be and anyone can translate them anyway they see fit.
You've brought nothing to the table except your own personal opinions/fantasies. If you can't admit that you're wrong about anything and choose to carry on like a petulant child instead, then so be it.
Sticks and stones but since some people like to just randomly post internet articles as fact here you go.
I don't randomly post anything. And I have no interest in opening the link you posted as I've no idea what it relates to.
Oh it's the truth. It was a study based on numbers...with actual cases sighted. It's quite interesting reading actually. Pretty much goes back to my original point tht interlock devices do not stop someone from driving drunk. You should read it. It's interesting.
Oh it's the truth. It was a study based on numbers...with actual cases sighted. It's quite interesting reading actually. Pretty much goes back to my original point tht interlock devices do not stop someone from driving drunk. You should read it. It's interesting.
Oh it's the truth. It was a study based on numbers...with actual cases sighted. It's quite interesting reading actually. Pretty much goes back to my original point tht interlock devices do not stop someone from driving drunk. You should read it. It's interesting.
numbers & cases & jerk stats, oh my!
No. This one is the truth. I found it on the internet and everything.
Oh it's the truth. It was a study based on numbers...with actual cases sighted. It's quite interesting reading actually. Pretty much goes back to my original point tht interlock devices do not stop someone from driving drunk. You should read it. It's interesting.
numbers & cases & jerk stats, oh my!
No. This one is the truth. I found it on the internet and everything.
for 3 months I drive by a memorial of a Dead person.. They are deeply mourned. I know this because because traffic is always stopped in this lane. People are always giving this tree "memorial" flowers and candles.. etc. I'm unsure who died but they did not die in vain or on purpose. It is traumatic for the entire county.
Don't Drive Drunk or Crazy
People Care. :( My mom, is a nurse, sees it everyday. Who forgets? Will be destined to remember...
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?
I keep an open mind and I'm learning why I could not say who I would be voting for.
It was a hard choice for me this election.
I voted independent for the first time in my 36 years of voting.
Some would say I finally came around. I think they are correct.
It was a good choice for me.
Why do you continually insinuate and imply personal traits
that are not based in fact but your own personal opinion and bias?
I have answered your question highlighted there in blue.
Is that not clear enough for you? I will explain...
Unless all guns can magically disappear from the Earth,
which is impossible except by divine intervention, there is a need for them.
You and others have admitted the need the school had to have one for protection. This is the reality.
God bless the heroes who also protect others. We wish there was one there that day.
I don't randomly post anything. And I have no interest in opening the link you posted as I've no idea what it relates to.
Oh it's the truth. It was a study based on numbers...with actual cases sighted. It's quite interesting reading actually. Pretty much goes back to my original point tht interlock devices do not stop someone from driving drunk. You should read it. It's interesting.
I read the entire article, and you see things quite differently than I do. I see the interlocking devices working. Are all offenders getting them installed in their vehicle when ordered to do so? Nope. But if they don't, they take their car off the road, or sell it. THAT MEANS THEY AREN'T DRIVING. And if they have a friend dumb enough to enable them to drink and drive, there are laws put in place to prosecute them as well.
any law that is new is going to have speed bumps. But if it has the potential to save one life (which it obviously does), then it's worth it.
it's unbelievable to me that someone would be opposed to something like this.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
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?
The fact that you view guns as "dangerous toys" speaks volumes about how you really feel.
What you think about all gun owners.
I would challenge your capabilities for reasonable discussion and debate (your words)
with this attitude. To me it is a "spiraling nonsensical" belief ...
your words again.
Gun monkeys as you put it is extremely insulting and reveals bias. Do you know anyone
who owns a gun? Or is it just the posters here who are less human beings for their opinions
and gun ownership choices?
Yes we all wish there had been a gun there, a hero...
so then I can assume you are in favor of resource officers in the schools?
The logical solution to protecting our children? One that would and does actually work.
Something suggested by the NRA?
To answer your giant question for me personally it matters not
if gun regulations take place. If certain guns are banned or the ammunition.
It does not effect me. I am here to defend those who choose to own a gun.
These gun regulations will not stop mass killings, violence on the streets,
home invasions. People will own guns illegally, as they do now.
But unfortunately it will be the good guys, which is really fucked up,
most especially in a country based on freedom and choices.
... 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.
I can not fathom not being allowed to protect innocent life
According to the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, which collects the results of academic studies about crime and policing, repeat drunken drivers comprise a relatively small proportion of the total number of drivers but are disproportionately responsible for alcohol-related crashes and other problems associated with drunken driving. Anywhere from one-third to three-fourths of drivers arrested for drunken driving have previously been charged with the offense, CPOP says. CPOP reports that by some estimates, the average drunken driver will drive while impaired between 80 and 2,000 times for every time he is apprehended. If that ratio is accurate, Diaz/DeLeon/Diaz-DeLeon/Delgado/Ortiz/Morales/Lopez may actually have driven impaired not 15 or so times, but 1,200 to 30,000 times.
We might all agree here it is the justice system :?
an interlock only works on those who are law abiding citizens,
the similarities to gun ownership ...
laws do not control people
According to the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, which collects the results of academic studies about crime and policing, repeat drunken drivers comprise a relatively small proportion of the total number of drivers but are disproportionately responsible for alcohol-related crashes and other problems associated with drunken driving. Anywhere from one-third to three-fourths of drivers arrested for drunken driving have previously been charged with the offense, CPOP says. CPOP reports that by some estimates, the average drunken driver will drive while impaired between 80 and 2,000 times for every time he is apprehended. If that ratio is accurate, Diaz/DeLeon/Diaz-DeLeon/Delgado/Ortiz/Morales/Lopez may actually have driven impaired not 15 or so times, but 1,200 to 30,000 times.
We might all agree here it is the justice system :?
an interlock only works on those who are law abiding citizens,
the similarities to gun ownership ...
laws do not control people
well if no laws work, then get rid of the entire justice system, arm ourselves to the teeth, and every man, woman and child for themselves.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
for people to say "only the law abiding follow the laws" as an argument to let us do what we want is unfathomable. so should we:
make murder legal?
make cocaine, heroin, and all other hard drugs legal?
make child molestation legal?
make drunk driving legal?
after all, your argument states that laws don't work, since only the law abiding follow them. so what's the point of any laws then?
what a preposterous argument. only the law abiding follow laws, so don't make them. good lord. yeah, let's not punish those who get caught doing illegal things, let's just get rid of all laws! fuck society!
the thread title is correct, only not as intended. This madness DOES have to stop.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
According to the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, which collects the results of academic studies about crime and policing, repeat drunken drivers comprise a relatively small proportion of the total number of drivers but are disproportionately responsible for alcohol-related crashes and other problems associated with drunken driving. Anywhere from one-third to three-fourths of drivers arrested for drunken driving have previously been charged with the offense, CPOP says. CPOP reports that by some estimates, the average drunken driver will drive while impaired between 80 and 2,000 times for every time he is apprehended. If that ratio is accurate, Diaz/DeLeon/Diaz-DeLeon/Delgado/Ortiz/Morales/Lopez may actually have driven impaired not 15 or so times, but 1,200 to 30,000 times.
We might all agree here it is the justice system :?
an interlock only works on those who are law abiding citizens,
the similarities to gun ownership ...
laws do not control people
well if no laws work, then get rid of the entire justice system, arm ourselves to the teeth, and every man, woman and child for themselves.
The point of course is we can not count on laws for change.
People who cause the problem in the first place, do not follow them.
So the anticipated absolute change has little or no effect because of lawlessness.
Some might like an overhaul though of the justice system. The article certainly speaks to that.
for people to say "only the law abiding follow the laws" as an argument to let us do what we want is unfathomable. so should we:
make murder legal?
make cocaine, heroin, and all other hard drugs legal?
make child molestation legal?
make drunk driving legal?
after all, your argument states that laws don't work, since only the law abiding follow them. so what's the point of any laws then?
what a preposterous argument. only the law abiding follow laws, so don't make them. good lord. yeah, let's not punish those who get caught doing illegal things, let's just get rid of all laws! fuck society!
the thread title is correct, only not as intended. This madness DOES have to stop.
We have laws to punish those who hurt others. Do they work?
The jury is out on that look at the full prisons.
Some follow laws some do not, some pick and choose per their moral frame
what to follow.
We have laws to punish those who hurt others. Do they work?
The jury is out on that look at the full prisons.
Some follow laws some do not, some pick and choose per their moral frame
what to follow.
of course laws work. is it perfect? of course not. but it's all we have. giving up on it is not the answer.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
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'm not sure what a "jerkoff stat" is, but my guess is it's a phrase you throw around when numbers you're confronted with disprove your predetermined position. Am I getting close? Good grief man, use your head.
It is a jerkoff stat. What are the numbers for people convicted of DWI's...not given a free pass out of jail...and then drive on their own conviction when their proper penalty is served? My guess is there's very little difference if any at all.
And you'd be flat wrong on that.
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
To answer your giant question for me personally it matters not
if gun regulations take place.
...and still no answer. What a tease.
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
We have laws to punish those who hurt others. Do they work?
The jury is out on that look at the full prisons.
Some follow laws some do not, some pick and choose per their moral frame
what to follow.
of course laws work. is it perfect? of course not. but it's all we have. giving up on it is not the answer.
Relying on laws as a solution for a problem is not the answer either...
as we see with our prisons full. It's easy to pass a law but not the answer.
We have laws to punish those who hurt others. Do they work?
The jury is out on that look at the full prisons.
Some follow laws some do not, some pick and choose per their moral frame
what to follow.
of course laws work. is it perfect? of course not. but it's all we have. giving up on it is not the answer.
Relying on laws as a solution for a problem is not the answer either...
as we see with our prisons full. It's easy to pass a law but not the answer.
what can you do then? policy is the hallmark of democracy and a well run one... changing human's inane thirst for violence is almost impossible.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
To answer your giant question for me personally it matters not
if gun regulations take place.
...and still no answer. What a tease.
your definition of a tease ... which by the way is a personal comment we are attempting to avoid must be when one only listens to one sentence.
I was commenting on your statement that you were answering my "giant question" and then yet, you didn't answer the question.
So let's try again: if there were a regulation that could have prevented the shooting, would you support it?
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
Comments
I'm not sure what a "jerkoff stat" is, but my guess is it's a phrase you throw around when numbers you're confronted with disprove your predetermined position. Am I getting close? Good grief man, use your head.
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
Like I said a few pages back, i know two people who have these things installed on their cars after a DUI conviction, and it works for them. They are embarrassed about it, and either get a ride with friends or take a cab. That comment was ignored though. There's no sense in even discussing it with some folks who have their mind made up no matter what...even if they dont know much about something. I doubt there's much info on the success of these devices, but I could be wrong.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studies indicate that the ignition interlock programs reduce recidivism among DWI offenders by as much as 90%. Other studies indicate that anywhere between one-third and half of all DWIs are committed by repeat offenders.
So...you do the math. Sounds like a worthwhile program to me.
But some here have painted themselves into a corner where they will only accept regulations that, at the outset, are airtight and perfectly effective. This of course leaves two options: a DWI machine in every car, or, complete incapacitation. Or, in other words, Orwellian supervision or Draconian gulags.
Gun rights? Bill of Rights trumps all.
DWI enforcement? What's "cruel and unusual punishment?"
Funny how the Bill of Rights fades in relevance for some people, depending on the issue.
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 is a jerkoff stat. What are the numbers for people convicted of DWI's...not given a free pass out of jail...and then drive on their own conviction when their proper penalty is served? My guess is there's very little difference if any at all.
Exactly. And he dismisses stats from various University's and organizations as 'speculation and mumbo jumbo'.
It's what people do when they're incapable of admitting they're wrong.
Because I'm simply not wrong. Statistics can be bent anyway you want them to be and anyone can translate them anyway they see fit.
Yes you are. You've been proven wrong in the Death Penalty thread on numerous counts, and you've been proven wrong again in this thread.
You've brought nothing to the table except your own personal opinions/fantasies. If you can't admit that you're wrong about anything and choose to carry on like a petulant child instead, then so be it.
Sticks and stones but since some people like to just randomly post internet articles as fact here you go.
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 19577/1010
I don't randomly post anything. And I have no interest in opening the link you posted as I've no idea what it relates to.
Oh it's the truth. It was a study based on numbers...with actual cases sighted. It's quite interesting reading actually. Pretty much goes back to my original point tht interlock devices do not stop someone from driving drunk. You should read it. It's interesting.
numbers & cases & jerk stats, oh my!
No. This one is the truth. I found it on the internet and everything.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/201 ... hes_i.html
for 3 months I drive by a memorial of a Dead person.. They are deeply mourned. I know this because because traffic is always stopped in this lane. People are always giving this tree "memorial" flowers and candles.. etc. I'm unsure who died but they did not die in vain or on purpose. It is traumatic for the entire county.
Don't Drive Drunk or Crazy
People Care. :( My mom, is a nurse, sees it everyday. Who forgets? Will be destined to remember...
It was a hard choice for me this election.
I voted independent for the first time in my 36 years of voting.
Some would say I finally came around. I think they are correct.
It was a good choice for me.
Why do you continually insinuate and imply personal traits
that are not based in fact but your own personal opinion and bias?
I have answered your question highlighted there in blue.
Is that not clear enough for you? I will explain...
Unless all guns can magically disappear from the Earth,
which is impossible except by divine intervention, there is a need for them.
You and others have admitted the need the school had to have one for protection.
This is the reality.
God bless the heroes who also protect others. We wish there was one there that day.
I read the entire article, and you see things quite differently than I do. I see the interlocking devices working. Are all offenders getting them installed in their vehicle when ordered to do so? Nope. But if they don't, they take their car off the road, or sell it. THAT MEANS THEY AREN'T DRIVING. And if they have a friend dumb enough to enable them to drink and drive, there are laws put in place to prosecute them as well.
any law that is new is going to have speed bumps. But if it has the potential to save one life (which it obviously does), then it's worth it.
it's unbelievable to me that someone would be opposed to something like this.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The fact that you view guns as "dangerous toys" speaks volumes about how you really feel.
What you think about all gun owners.
I would challenge your capabilities for reasonable discussion and debate (your words)
with this attitude. To me it is a "spiraling nonsensical" belief ...
your words again.
Gun monkeys as you put it is extremely insulting and reveals bias. Do you know anyone
who owns a gun? Or is it just the posters here who are less human beings for their opinions
and gun ownership choices?
Yes we all wish there had been a gun there, a hero...
so then I can assume you are in favor of resource officers in the schools?
The logical solution to protecting our children? One that would and does actually work.
Something suggested by the NRA?
To answer your giant question
if gun regulations take place. If certain guns are banned or the ammunition.
It does not effect me. I am here to defend those who choose to own a gun.
These gun regulations will not stop mass killings, violence on the streets,
home invasions. People will own guns illegally, as they do now.
But unfortunately it will be the good guys, which is really fucked up,
most especially in a country based on freedom and choices.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/02/ ... l-driving/
the final thought :shock:
According to the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, which collects the results of academic studies about crime and policing, repeat drunken drivers comprise a relatively small proportion of the total number of drivers but are disproportionately responsible for alcohol-related crashes and other problems associated with drunken driving. Anywhere from one-third to three-fourths of drivers arrested for drunken driving have previously been charged with the offense, CPOP says. CPOP reports that by some estimates, the average drunken driver will drive while impaired between 80 and 2,000 times for every time he is apprehended. If that ratio is accurate, Diaz/DeLeon/Diaz-DeLeon/Delgado/Ortiz/Morales/Lopez may actually have driven impaired not 15 or so times, but 1,200 to 30,000 times.
We might all agree here it is the justice system :?
an interlock only works on those who are law abiding citizens,
the similarities to gun ownership ...
laws do not control people
well if no laws work, then get rid of the entire justice system, arm ourselves to the teeth, and every man, woman and child for themselves.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
make murder legal?
make cocaine, heroin, and all other hard drugs legal?
make child molestation legal?
make drunk driving legal?
after all, your argument states that laws don't work, since only the law abiding follow them. so what's the point of any laws then?
what a preposterous argument. only the law abiding follow laws, so don't make them. good lord. yeah, let's not punish those who get caught doing illegal things, let's just get rid of all laws! fuck society!
the thread title is correct, only not as intended. This madness DOES have to stop.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
People who cause the problem in the first place, do not follow them.
So the anticipated absolute change has little or no effect because of lawlessness.
Some might like an overhaul though of the justice system. The article certainly speaks to that.
The jury is out on that look at the full prisons.
Some follow laws some do not, some pick and choose per their moral frame
what to follow.
of course laws work. is it perfect? of course not. but it's all we have. giving up on it is not the answer.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
And you'd be flat wrong on that.
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
...and still no answer. What a tease.
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
as we see with our prisons full. It's easy to pass a law but not the answer.
what can you do then? policy is the hallmark of democracy and a well run one... changing human's inane thirst for violence is almost impossible.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
I was commenting on your statement that you were answering my "giant question" and then yet, you didn't answer the question.
So let's try again: if there were a regulation that could have prevented the shooting, would you support it?
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