[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If someone did something like that and mangled my wife and/or child in front of me I’d probably beat them to death with my bare hands and not stop smashing their face in until I could no longer lift my arms. [/quote]
Based on the book I’m reading right now, my understanding is:
none of us know how’d we react, but if we did react as you describe it wouldn’t really be a conscious choice. You would just sort of “do it” if that is what your brain told your body to do. [/quote]
When it comes to your kids, all bets are off. Accident or no accident, meant to or not.
You can mess with me all you want. You fuck with my kids and I am going to fuck you up, badly. That’s what parents do.
It’s not logical, it’s not measured, it’s not reasonable, it’s your kids and you don’t fuck with a man’s kids. When it comes to our kids, we parents don’t give a rat’s ass about jail. We will do anything for our kids.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
The thing is, when a drunk drives, nobody is hurt; if the drunk hurts someone, that’s a different story. When the government is allowed to punish victimless activities, victims are created.[/quote]
I agree it is a “what if” scenario and I agree with the above sentiment in several cases (prostitution, drug use, etc…). My opinion is just the opposite of yours in this case. I believe criminalizing the action of DUI increases the likelihood that there is no victim at all.
This is of course predicated on where the DUI takes place. I am only for charges when on public property.
I Think of it this way. Playing Russia roulette by yourself (private property) perfectly fine and should be legal (stupid as all hell, but whatever). Playing Russian roulette with an unwilling or unknowing party (DUI) imo should be illegal because you are knowingly endangering another party against their will or knowledge.
[/quote]
dictionary.com:
1.a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency:
“a victim of an automobile accident.”
2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency:
“a victim of misplaced confidence; the victim of a swindler; a victim of an optical illusion.”
3. a person or animal sacrificed or regarded as sacrificed:
“war victims.”
4. a living creature sacrificed in religious rites.
If a “drunk” driver does no harm, but is arrested because he is “drunk”, then he will be the one who “suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency.” In no sense of the word does a victim exist purely because someone chooses to drive while “drunk.”
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This goes for really anything, on public property, that involves a risk to others and any substance that impairs a person.
[/quote]
The above links seem to point to a member of a certain race(52.4% of murderers were members of this race, while that race makes up only 12.3% of the U.S. population) presenting an increased danger to others, as well as a substance(melanin) that’s responsible for that increased risk. [/quote]
Well we should not allow people out in the sun. Obviously it makes people more dangerous.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If someone did something like that and mangled my wife and/or child in front of me I’d probably beat them to death with my bare hands and not stop smashing their face in until I could no longer lift my arms. [/quote]
Based on the book I’m reading right now, my understanding is:
none of us know how’d we react, but if we did react as you describe it wouldn’t really be a conscious choice. You would just sort of “do it” if that is what your brain told your body to do. [/quote]
When it comes to your kids, all bets are off. Accident or no accident, meant to or not.
You can mess with me all you want. You fuck with my kids and I am going to fuck you up, badly. That’s what parents do.
It’s not logical, it’s not measured, it’s not reasonable, it’s your kids and you don’t fuck with a man’s kids. When it comes to our kids, we parents don’t give a rat’s ass about jail. We will do anything for our kids.[/quote]
No doubt, all I’m saying is… Unless you train for this, you might not do this.
Again no first hand experience, just what I’m trying to learn so I can train myself. But you revert back to the level of training you’ve mastered. Which means if you spend all day at the range firing at the sound of a “beep” you won’t fire in a fight until you hear that “beep”, or if you always practice stripping a firearm and instantly turn around and hand it back to the person to try again, you hand it back to the criminal in combat too.
You know the only thing that really truly bothers me about this?
That Barajas hid the gun after he murdered Banda Jr. (Yes, I truly believe he did it; just 50 yards from home and you just watched your two sons die because of a drunk driver. I believe I would have done the same; except with my fists because I probably wouldn’t own a gun)
Implies that he clearly believed that what he did was wrong, but refused to face the consequences.
I’m pretty sure the jury would have bought a “not guilty by temporary fit of insanity” plea.
What do you think about this hypothetical DUI law.
No blood/alcohol provision. Cops must have cause to request a driver to perform field sobriety tests. Tests must be video recorded. If you can pass the test, your ok (even if you have a BAC of .33). If you cannot pass them, your DUI (impaired OR intoxicated), even if you have 1 drink 8 hours ago and you have a BAC of .0001.
What do you think about this hypothetical DUI law.
No blood/alcohol provision. Cops must have cause to request a driver to perform field sobriety tests. Tests must be video recorded. If you can pass the test, your ok (even if you have a BAC of .33). If you cannot pass them, your DUI (impaired OR intoxicated), even if you have 1 drink 8 hours ago and you have a BAC of .0001.
Would you be good with this?[/quote]
Yes, that would be awesome, but I don’t think you intended to offer me an easy out with this question. With BAC not being a factor, all drivers would have to do is refuse all tests(which they can do now, up until the official BAC test) to avoid punishment, since it would be almost impossible to gather probable cause to make an arrest without the tests.
To give you an answer more in line with the way I think you intended the question be read: No, I would not be okay with that. More would still be taken from the driver than he took from others.
Everyone IS aware that a driver is legally permitted to refuse all field sobriety testing, right?
Where I live the drinking and driving laws are pretty tough. If you blow .05 or a “warn” on an ASD you are subject to a 3 day roadside suspension, possible vehicle impoundment, but no criminal charge. It could and has been argued that these penalties are somewhat draconian.
That said, since the adoption of this law in 2010 deaths resulting from impaired driving have declined by over 50%. Or to put it another way almost 200 people who should , statistically, be dead aren’t. It is difficult to argue with that.
Regarding race car drivers and grandmas, laws are never written for outliers, they are written for the average, prudent person. The average person shows significant cognitive and motor function impairment by .08 BAC and if he is prudent, he won’t drive. It may not be perfect, but it’s right more often than it’s wrong.
I require my wife to always have a gun. My daughter will not be allowed to leave the house without self defense training with a fire arm and a commitment to always be armed.
I cannot prevent bad things from happening of course, but I want to at least have given her every opportunity to protect herself. I want her to have a fighting chance in any situation that may arise.
I think all sane single women should arm themselves. I want to see more news stories where attempted rapists end up shot when encountering an armed woman.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re an American, right? So you did grow up in a gun culture.[/quote]
Well, I am an immigrant, and largely lived in one of the more liberal/PC regions of a largely liberal state.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
If somehow you didn’t, or you mean your immediate family and social network didn’t have guns, so what? You could think of owning one right now…and then proceed on that thought to acquiring one or more.
I could make a solid argument that it’s your duty to own one both as just a man, and an American citizen who is part of the militia whether you realize it or not. I won’t necessarily go there exhaustively right now though.
The gun is a tool. Just because you might have grown up in a household where no one had or used ratchet and socket wrenches doesn’t mean you should avoid the ownership and use of socket wrenches. You might just find that a good socket set is one of the most effective tools a man could have in this life. To obstinately avoid the use of sockets because your dad never had one just doesn’t make good sense.
Your horizons will be expanded if you own a socket set.
Your horizons will also be expanded if you own a gun.[/quote]
Don’t misunderstand. I don’t think of guns as a killing machine. I fully realize that they are a tool.
I just never had a need to buy a gun. Obviously that may change if I move to a more dangerous neighborhood/have a family of my own and decide that I need a gun to protect them.
All that being said, fair enough to everything in the quote above. Though I would like to see you argue why it’s a duty as a man to own a gun. I could fully agree with the idea that it’s your duty as an American citizen to own a gun though.
