I'm glad someone smells the coffee

L

leedesert

New member
From AP today....

More attention paid to gun control

Intoxicated drivers are a tremendous threat to all Americans, and they have no right to drive. In their hands, vehicles become deadly weapons, and society must confront that fact.

I recently got a letter from the Rev. David Reedy, who lives in Cincinnati and works with drunken driving victims and their families. Reedy said: "I've held the hands of women who have lost husbands, prayed for children who have lost parents and tried to find some comfort for parents who are facing the unspeakable -- the early deaths of their kids. I find it ironic that after the dramatic school shootings in Littleton and other places, congress is taking steps on gun control. Yet every day people die in the streets because of the irresponsibility of intoxicated motorists -- and little is being done."

The reverend is right, of course. We are numb to the drunken driving carnage. We're used to hearing about it and seeing people like Entz shrug it off. But impaired driving is a serious crime, and none of us is safe from it. The next time you see some jerk weaving in and out on the highway, simply ask yourself this question: Why does society tolerate it?

By Bill O'Reilly, host of the Fox News Channel show The O'Reilly Factor and author of the crime novel Those Who Trespass.

------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16



[This message has been edited by leedesert (edited October 06, 1999).]
 
Oh - see - anything more on drinking and driving would cost people there civil rights!
The ACLU would be all over them!

See - fighting Drunk Driving is not in keeping with the Governments agenda of domination. If the population is drinking - GOOD! They can control us better - keep us from THINKING CLEARLY!

Its all about CONTROL.


------------------
I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
 
Society tolerates drunk driving? That's news to me, considering all the DUI laws, breathalyzer tests, sobriety checkpoints, anti-DUI advertisements, and server liability laws we have.

What else, besides reinstating Prohibition, remains to be done?
 
Lord only knows what has to be done, but I do know this. How many times have you heard of a drunk driver killing someone, and it being their 5th offense???

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm........

------------------
DOCSpanky
"Walk softly and carry a big stick, perferably one of the 12 guage variety!"
 
How often do you hear about it being someone who's driving with a suspended license because of previous infractions?

Wayyy too often.

We've tried prohibition. It turned organized crime into one of the most successful American enterprises. Ditto with drugs.

But, what can be done? I think we've reached a point where we have to accept that life is risky. Life with freedoms is especially dangerous, because there will always be those who choose to abuse their freedoms. The only alternative would be to remove those freedoms, and that, to me at least, is totally unacceptable.

Life is dangerous. Live with it.

------------------
Beginner barbarians probably had the idea that every house they broke into would be full of untouched loot and frightened, unarmed victims. It just doesn't work that way, my friend.

I hope these evil men come to understand our peaceful ways soon - My trigger finger is blistering!
 
Ive said this before. THEY drink and THEY have cars.THEY dont like guns and THEY dont want anybody else to have them.
Alcohol will never be illegal.

Look at the similarities between alcohol and guns.Abuse is what causes the problems. There are a lot of people who keep and bear alcohol who have never killed or maimed.More people are harmed by alcohol than guns yet guns get the attention. Why is that???

Cause THEY like alcohol.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Guns have a stigma, automobiles don't. Not to metion guns are deemed as a threat by our government/UN/NWO. Automobiles make the world go round, to work, from work, to the store, etc. Start banning automobiles you start disrupting the economic system. It is the economic system that keeps the government strong. A little off colored but just my two cents.
 
I don't think O'Reilly is correct when he states that we tolerate DUI. It seems to me that there has been a crack down on such behavior and from the boys in blue that I know, DUIs are decreasing (still too many, but less than in the past).

Interesting isn't it? Instead of further regulating alcohol and cars, the decrease in DUIs came from strictly regulating and enforcing the laws against the act of driving under the influence itself. With guns they have it bassackwards: don't punish the behavior, regulate the objects. Of course the flaw here is the premise that gun control is to help prevent crime.

Just my two cents.

Jack
 
For the heinous act that killing a person cause you had a few too many is, I think the country is VERY tolerant. Sure, there are a lot of laws, but enforcing is all that matters. (Sound familiar?) I have several friends that have been let off with a warning, or what have you. What was said above about 4th or 5th offense is right. That's tolerance.
 
Drinking and driving costs lives!

Maybe we can get Ted Kennedy to propose some new anti-drinking laws!!! For the children! Please!



------------------
Beginner barbarians probably had the idea that every house they broke into would be full of untouched loot and frightened, unarmed victims. It just doesn't work that way, my friend.

I hope these evil men come to understand our peaceful ways soon - My trigger finger is blistering!
 
George, you hit the nail on the head. The Clintonites want everyone drugged up and feeling good, to escape the reality of their crappy lives, which are in turn the consequence of their liberal policies (e.g. selling out the good jobs to foreign countries, so we can all work in a service industry for minimum wage). Then people will "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". This is part of dumbing down America. I think it was Karl Marx who said religion is the opiate of the masses. He had it right, but not complete. Religion AND television AND real opium, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, methamphetimines, etc., are the opiates of the masses. Notice how the Clintonites now embrace "religious values"?

YES, I think society DOES tolerate drunk driving to some extent, certainly it does relative to the harm caused. Look at the point brought up above: "gun control" vs. drunk-driver control. Put aside for a moment the constitutinality of "gun control" and assume that any laws are OK. Now compare the amount of people killed and maimed by drunk drivers relative to the crack-down on them by laws, versus the ILLEGAL harm caused "by guns", not legal self-defense shootings, relative to the media uproar and some 20,000 local, state, and federal "gun control" laws - I see a huge disparity here myself. I think part of the whole liberal agenda is the tolerating of drugs and alcohol even when it causes severe harm (drunk driving accidents are but one aspect of the enormous social harm caused by drugs, including alcohol). I am against a legal crackdown on the use of the drugs themselves (the war on drugs), simply for pragmatic reasons (it doesn't work, and takes away our rights), but as for incredibly stiff laws for harm to OTHERS caused by your use of drugs, including alcohol, I'm all in favor of it. I have several friends who got virtually nothing for their first DUI - not even the supposedly mandatory six-month DL suspension, with interlock device to get to work only. If we were serious about stopping drunks on the road, everyone would serve at least 30 days for their first offense, and six months for their second. The drunks that cause the bad accidents are NOT generally these young folks getting their first DUI, BUT nearly all the older drunks causing the bad accident did at some point get that first DUI, and unfortunately the consequences did not leave a lasting impression on the offender.

One more thing: Let's not forget that driving (on public roads) is a privilege; the RKBA is a RIGHT.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited October 06, 1999).]
 
Well, I might get flamed for going the confiscation route, but . . .

A lot of times these DUIs are driving around on a revoked license. At that point, "There oughtta be a law" to confiscate the car. People would sure as Hell be careful who they lent Old Betsy to. If the BG uses his own, so much the better. A hardship? Gee, use a cab. Maybe THEN they'll get the point.

First offense is xx days revocation, 2nd is lifetime (if it's good enough for guns . . . ).

Ever be enacted? Nah. As mentioned above, too
many officials, let alone citizens, too often drive UI -- either drugs or booze, or both. Since driving is a privilege, I see no Big Brother here. Abuse it and lose it.

------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
 
I agree with two of the sentiments expressed in this thread, which IMHO are equally applicable to the misuse of guns and the misuse of alcohol:

1) The problem is the abuse, not the substance (or instrument).

2) The repeat offenders are getting too much slack.

I'd also like to gripe a little about the current campaign against DUI:

I disagree with the trend towards lower and lower legal blood alcohol levels. Granted, any amount of alcohol in the bloodstream is going to cause SOME impairment, but I think we're reaching the point of outlawing BACs that don't cause SIGNIFICANT impairment. Lower the BAC to 0.00001% and you're going to waste a lot of law enforcement resources on people who aren't a threat while a bunch of stinking drunk morons will still be killing people with their cars. I suspect that MADD and company keep pushing new BAC limits mostly for the sake of "doing something" that worked before, even though it's time to try something else. Meanwhile, people are getting cynical about DUI crackdowns when a bad whiff on the Breathalyzer two hours after dinner gets the same penalty as being staggering drunk on a quart of vodka.

I also think that the emphasis on reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities is diverting attention from other problems, namely the deaths caused by people driving while impaired by fatigue, prescription medication, old age, car phone conversations and other problems. A kid killed by Granny who can't see over the dashboard or by Joe Trucker who hasn't slept in 18 hours is just as dead as one killed by Billy Boozalot.

Just my $0.02 rant for the day...
 
O.K. guy's, just to keep the subject matter on line don't forget this...
The comparison was drawn to show the tolerance that America has in attitude toward drunk driving. If we each look at an individual death caused by a drunk driver we would all react about the same.
However, with as many deaths caused by drunk drivers you'd think we would here about it more on TV.
We don't because we tolerate it as a acceptable evil in our society. But pull out a gun and you have to be televised, scrutinized, penalized, and excorsized.
The man who took my mothers life back in 1977 was drunk. He running from the cops crossed the yellow line at 110 miles an hour. His sentance was 15 years and he got out in 8. If he had shot her he would be doing life.
As much as we don't like it we tolerate it.

------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
 
I had to attend a traffic school a while back and the teacher was a retired CHP cop (good guy) that had an interesting point.

According to him, drunk drivers should get MORE jail time than "outright murderers," not less. Why? Because from the victims point of view, the randomness of being killed (or having a loved one killed) by a drunk driver is the real problem. Most murders in this country are A) drug related (ie, victim is not exactly an angel either and is engaging in activity that is highly dangerous and they usually know the consequences) or B) the victim knows their killer and can conceivably protect him or herself (I know this isn't particulary realistic, but most murders in this category are preceded by violence of some sort).

Contrast this to the Drunk Driver/Murderer. You're literally driving down the road at the wrong time and boom, you're dead. You aren't doing anything particularly dangerous, you are taking all necessary precautions and still, you end up on al slab because of a totally random intersection of space/time.
Shouldn't that murderer be punished more, or at least as much, as any other?
 
Call me barbaric, but I would prefer to live in a society wit just a few rules, enforced draconianly. A habitual drunken driver is in my eyes the same as a person who goes about randomly shooting people in the head. He is a clear and present danger to society. If he can be reformed with a 100% guarantee of sucess, then so be it. If not, that's why we have the death penalty.
 
A women was killed two nights ago in Va. Beach by a drunk driver, the gentleman driving had prior alcohol offences... a crying shame.

There are a couple of individuals that work in my office who practice drunk driving about 2-3 times a week. One gentleman has THREE DUI's and a public intox to boot. He still has his licence, he still has a high paying job, he has a top secret DoD security clearance AND he still drinks and drives. One word....ALCOHOLIC and another word "good ole boy".

Our society lets people get away with this crap yet an inanimate object like a firearm is dangerous? Sorry for the rant.
Hiker
 
Did they relax the requirements for a TS clearance since 1990? If not, one phone call could get that guy's clearance revoked. I knew a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy that had to change rates from "Radioman" to "Master at Arms" because his second DUI revoked his TS clearance. No way you can be a RM without having a TS clearance. He was an E-7 so they gave him the option of changing rates to MA, which he did.
 
Oatka:

You're on the right track... but a tad lenient for me. 1st offense: Shock probation (3weeks to 6 months in the hoosgow, then straight to intensive, high structure parole) for 15 years to life and permanent revocation of their license. Any vehicles MUST be sold. 5 years of required alohol-counseling, NOT A.A. (Yes, I'd want these counselors state-funded. They're MUCH cheaper than the total cost of incarceration of the criminals ($50-$100/day) and the cost of the havoc they reach ($$$$-priceless), and the recitivism rate drops dramatically [per Dr. Quinn, my Corrections prof., and J.Senderson, my Community Corrections prof.]

Second offense. Throw away the key.

As an aside, anyone who has had their license revoked for DWI/DUI who is caught driving for any reason would be thrown in jail for not less than 5 years. If it's an emergency, it's worth explaining to the judge when your court date arrives.

******

All that said-- I drink. I brew my own beer, for the hobby and to get a high-quality, high potency beer at home for my price. I drink single malt Scotch. (Glenmorangie and the MacAllen are faves). I have NO friends who've been physically hurt or killed by a DWI. (For this I thank God for my fortune.) I am NOT a crusader. I just don't understand the people who (watch for the gun reference, here!) can think of indicting me for the status offense of peacibly carrying a personal weapon, but who give mere slaps on the wrist to people who are ticking time bombs-- operating tons of steel at high speed on the same road as my wife and daughter. :( :( :o

------------------
Will you, too, be one who stands in the gap?

Matt
 
Alcohol abuse kills over 900,000 people anually in this country alone. This figure DOES NOT include people killed by drunken drivers, etc.; this number reflects only those who die as a direct result of various health problems brought on by excessive alcohol consumption.
My mother was an alcoholic. When I was 19, she died from choking on a piece of meat-which wouldn't have happened if she had not been drunk at the time she was eating. Ironic that the Heimlich maneuver was discovered about 6 months after her death.
We tolerate this, but we won't tolerate the legalization of drugs, or the legal ownership of guns? Let's see, deaths from drug abuse each year-less than 200,000. Deaths from guns each year-less than 50,000. What's wrong with this picture?

------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard
The Shottist's Center forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top