Drunk driving deaths

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Some people are easily fooled.

I know, but I don't think any less of you because of it.

[GandD 5,966]

Have averaged about 10,000 per year in the past Few years. This does not take into account the many thousands more that die from alcohol related causes every year.

Oddly enough firearm homicides avg a very similar number.

Alcohol serves no legitimate purpose, and there is logical reason a person would need it.

Yet guns do have some purpose. defense, sporting, collecting.

Yet there is no call to ban alcohol .. ??? Odd

PS. marijuana related deaths last year ... 0

Its illegal to drive a car while impaired. What's odd, as you say, is that its not illegal to operate a gun when impaired.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I'd have no problem with banning alcohol. It causes way more problems and solves none.

Funny thing about that thought, I have talked to folks who can't stand drugs(hate that too) but see no problem with getting drunk.

I drink now, though I didn't much in my youth. Got drunk (trashed) when I was 20 because I never had, and wanted to see what all the hype was. Have never done it since.

Alcohol is a drug, just as are other (illegal) substances. Some can handle it responsibly, others cannot. I would imagine there are folks who do cocaine, yet function just fine in daily life. At least for a while. I know some folks who admit to using coke (and other drugs) on a near-daily basis, but who quit because they saw it ending badly for them, or they chose a career move that wouldn't allow its continued use.

Banning alcohol use didn't do much in the US, nor does it with other illegal substances. It simply increases the price of said items, and forces folks to fight to obtain them. It is rather sad that with as much info that is available to the public, people still decide to drink then strap on a murder weapon and go out for a drive.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I know, but I don't think any less of you because of it.

Thanks Roxy.

[GandD 5,966]

I was talking to a man at an airport a while back .. He lost his CC permit because of a drunk driving arrest that was not a felony. Perhaps a DUI. A judge can grant a permit and he can pull it. According to his lawyer he lost the ability to own a pistol for life in that state.The judge was very anti-gun, He was not carrying at the time of the stop.

Sounds like we need that in dealing with DWI ... First offense . Lifetime ban on driving. The judge took away a right , Driving is only a privilege .

Except the majority of voters would never agree with you. Which is a good thing.

[Karee 4,190]

Yeah I was going to ask if he was new here.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I was talking to a man at an airport a while back .. He lost his CC permit because of a drunk driving arrest that was not a felony. Perhaps a DUI. A judge can grant a permit and he can pull it. According to his lawyer he lost the ability to own a pistol for life in that state.The judge was very anti-gun, He was not carrying at the time of the stop.

Sounds like we need that in dealing with DWI ... First offense . Lifetime ban on driving. The judge took away a right , Driving is only a privilege .

Good thing he doesn't need his gun to get back and forth to work, eh?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I drink now, though I didn't much in my youth. Got drunk (trashed) when I was 20 because I never had, and wanted to see what all the hype was. Have never done it since.

Alcohol is a drug, just as are other (illegal) substances. Some can handle it responsibly, others cannot. I would imagine there are folks who do cocaine, yet function just fine in daily life. At least for a while. I know some folks who admit to using coke (and other drugs) on a near-daily basis, but who quit because they saw it ending badly for them, or they chose a career move that wouldn't allow its continued use.

Banning alcohol use didn't do much in the US, nor does it with other illegal substances. It simply increases the price of said items, and forces folks to fight to obtain them. It is rather sad that with as much info that is available to the public, people still decide to drink then strap on a murder weapon and go out for a drive.

I got wasted in Ft. Hood for the first time when I was 22, for the same reason you did. But since my family had so many issues with drugs and alcohol, I abstain from both religiously.

Cocaine is the rich man's drug. Where I grew up it was either crack or weed. I've never tried either so I can't speak on it, but I've seen what crack does to someone, so I'd never even consider using it.

As Chris Rock said, people want to get high. Even if you got rid of all the drugs and alcohol, folks will be in their basements with some gasoline and lima beans mixed together getting tore up.

I think calling a car a murder weapon is a bit much. It's one purpose is to provide transportation. It can be used to kill someone, but so can anything else. A gun's sole purpose is to tear apart whatever is sitting in front of the barrel. There is a difference.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Its illegal to drive a car while impaired. What's odd, as you say, is that its not illegal to operate a gun when impaired.

It is not per se illegal, but if you have a DUI or other documented alcohol-related incident, getting a CCW permit can be extremely difficult.

[GandD 5,966]

About the nature of this thread.

1. A car is a something we use to move us from point a to point b. It's a mode of transportation. A gun is a weapon. It is used to kill things, that is its only purpose. So you see, any half wit would of course see the difference.

2. Very very few anti-gun people as you would describe them are for "banning" anything. Most are for tighter control of them. Once again, any half wit would be able to tell the difference between "banning" something and controlling something.

[Teddy B 17,252]

It is not per se illegal, but if you have a DUI or other documented alcohol-related incident, getting a CCW permit can be extremely difficult.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

About the nature of this thread.

1. A car is a something we use to move us from point a to point b. It's a mode of transportation. A gun is a weapon. It is used to kill things, that is its only purpose. So you see, any half wit would of course see the difference.

2. Very very few anti-gun people as you would describe them are for "banning" anything. Most are for tighter control of them. Once again, any half wit would be able to tell the difference between "banning" something and controlling something.

It's so old and tired, I don't even bother pointing it out anymore. The one thing that worries me is that Spooky continuously falls for this garbage. I think he could be an under cover gun aficionado.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

1) But since my family had so many issues with drugs and alcohol, I abstain from both religiously.

2) I think calling a car a murder weapon is a bit much. It's one purpose is to provide transportation. It can be used to kill someone, but so can anything else.

3) A gun's sole purpose is to tear apart whatever is sitting in front of the barrel. There is a difference.

1) Interesting.

2) I was referring to a drunk driver strapping one on, not a commuter. Potentially, it becomes a murder weapon. (Then again, someone here posted a good point that if a person drives intoxicated, but does nothing wrong, have they really committed a crime? Yet they are prosecuted as such).

3) Kind of, in an extremist sort of view. But in either case, the item can only do what the person responsible for its control allows it to do. Both can do good, both can ruin lives.

[GandD 5,966]

It is not per se illegal, but if you have a DUI or other documented alcohol-related incident, getting a CCW permit can be extremely difficult.

That's two different things.

[Teddy B 17,252]

1) Interesting.

2) I was referring to a drunk driver strapping one on, not a commuter. Potentially, it becomes a murder weapon. (Then again, someone here posted a good point that if a person drives intoxicated, but does nothing wrong, have they really committed a crime? Yet they are prosecuted as such).

3) Kind of, in an extremist sort of view. But in either case, the item can only do what the person responsible for its control allows it to do. Both can do good, both can ruin lives.

Do you really consider the part in bold a legitimate question?

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

About the nature of this thread.

1. A car is a something we use to move us from point a to point b. It's a mode of transportation. A gun is a weapon. It is used to kill things, that is its only purpose. So you see, any half wit would of course see the difference.

2. Very very few anti-gun people as you would describe them are for "banning" anything. Most are for tighter control of them. Once again, any half wit would be able to tell the difference between "banning" something and controlling something.

1) While you cna argue that a gun's main purpose is to kill things, I have used them for many years, and thus far the only things I have killed are what food I put on the table and many, many targets. Choosing the WRONG target is the fault of the end user. Also, consider the origins on the term "car bomb". Again, depends on the intent of the end user.

2) Even pro-gun folks don't mind better controls. I am ALL ABOUT tight background checks. I am all about removing one's right to carry because of a DUI, at least for a period of time. But I think the law goes way too far, also; consider a guy who has consensual sex with a minor (but doesn't know she was a minor at the time). By our laws, he can go to jail for that. And because he goes to jail, he is never allowed to own a gun for the rest of his life. Now THAT is ridiculous by just about anyone's logic.