I don’t know about percentages, but in a case from a few years ago, the court fined a wealthy businessman 700,000 kroner ($100k?) for driving 400m while drunk; it also looks like the driver’s license isn’t permanently removed at the first offense:
I’m comfortable assuming that they’ll need a bigger book if he drives drunk again.
Anecdotally, my aunt has travelled extensively in Norway and says that, for the most part, people don’t drink and drive.
But if he isn’t in a car, I’m almost certainly safe. While if someone in my home owns a gun, I’m more likely to be killed by that family member than by a criminal. The gun lovers don’t care of course, because to them human life takes a distant second to the all-important gun; if owning guns meant their family gets killed, well they are expendable and guns are not.
Your analogy only works if the person in question is drinking in a car.
By the same token, if a family member in your house drinks alcohol, you are more likely to be abused or assaulted by that family member than by a criminal. But the alcohol lovers don’t care of course, because to them human life takes a distant second to the all-important alcohol.
Of course, you can beg your family members to give up alcohol, just like you can beg them to give up guns. And some of them will; others will just say that they are a responsible alcohol user / gun owner and you’re worried about nothing.
No, not so. Statistically, the hypothetical random drinker is likely to have a car, and is far more likely to kill or injure you by driving drunk in that car, than the hypothetical gun owner is likely to shoot you. Whether the hypothetical drinker is presently in their car, or gets in their car 5 minutes later, is irrelevant.
By your logic, the gun owner is only a threat to you if he is presently waving the gun around and pointing it at you!
:rolleyes: No one however makes the argument that people need to drink at home to protect themselves from criminals.
No, they argue they need to drink because it’s fun and they like it, which is even dumber, given the risks and dangers to themselves and others. At least “protecting yourself from criminals” is a practical purpose, as opposed to something frivolous like mere recreation.
Having guns at home puts them in more danger than not owning them; it’s the opposite of practical. At least people who drink moderately actually enjoy themselves; that puts them one up on the people who buy guns for “safety”, they get what they want.
And again; guns are made to kill people, liquor isn’t; the two are not analogous.
Yes.
Condemn alcohol as the lowbrow, proletariat, organ dissolver any one with a function noggin knows it to be. Conversely, promote moderate use of ‘soft’ or ‘party’ drugs, like marijuana and MDMA-base methamphetamine, as a valid and comparatively healthy alternative recreational substance.
If you do this, you replace a vice that has almost zero redeeming aspects resulting from its use with others that, at the very least, if used conscientiously, are benign. That is, you wean people off of a destructive indulgence for one far less hazardous to themselves and, of import, their environment.
The simple litmus test of how many deaths and other ills, directly or indirectly (e.g.) ‘hash cookies’ or Ecstasy cause, versus what alcohol is clearly responsible for, is irrefutable evidence that society has this issue diametrically wrong. How many rubrics have you come across that read something like ‘Ecstasy Addled Raver King Hits Man In Street - Victim Comatose’…?
And finally, yes–I’d much rather be on the road with people who are stoned or high on a party pills than those who are drunk.
I know this is a parody and I don’t really think we need another gun thread, but I must say the original post/original poster name combo is delicious.
As far as I can tell, this might happen on the second offense. But I’m not even sure how credible this is. The internet is full of misinformation, and this fact is included on drunk driving “fact” lists which tend to outright lie in their presentation, or use old info. Like when they try to credibly tell you that some nation like El Salvador or Bulgaria can execute DDs without becoming a global pariah in this day and age. :rolleyes:
Well, statistically, having alcohol at home puts you at even more danger, especially when you consider the risk that you will harm yourself by overconsumption. And plenty of people actually enjoy owning guns, as a hobby, just like plenty of people actually enjoy alcohol.
Of course, if you are a careful gun owner, or a moderate drinker, you’re in little danger. Statistically, there are a only small number of careless gun owners and immoderate drinkers who cause the problems. But since you apparently see no reason to be sympathetic and understanding to the careful gun owners, I don’t know why you are sympathetic to the moderate drinkers.
You are assuming that every gun owner is a crazed, careless lunatic who is stupidly compromising his safety, while only a small fraction of alcohol consumers are. This is not representative of reality. In truth, only a small fraction of either group poses a risk to anyone. Since the popular consensus (at least on this board) is that guns need stricter regulation anyway, stricter alcohol regulation seems rational to me.
I own a gun and I drink. I almost never drink to excess and I don’t drink and drive, ever. Similarly, I keep the gun in a locked container and the ammunition on either side of the house, and I would not use it for self-defense. I bought it because I’m an engineer and I like mechanical things and I thought it would be fun to learn to use, clean, etc. I can assure you I did not buy it intending to kill anyone.
If some situation came up in which I had to use my gun in self-defense, I trust myself to be careful enough not to shoot an innocent person. Just like I trust myself not to abuse alcohol and endanger anyone (despite the fact that alcohol, by it’s very nature, harms your ability to make rational judgements).
I’ve never said it’s a perfect analogy. I think it is obvious that the two issues are quite similar, albeit not identical. But I am not willing to concede this point. Guns are capable of killing people, but most people do not buy guns planning to use them to kill people. Just as alcohol is capable of getting you drunk enough to accidentally run over a pedestrian, and the whole point of it is that it alters your mood/judgement/mental state/etc., but most people do not buy alcohol planning for that to happen.
For self-defense purposes, the sight of a gun is often enough to scare away a criminal. Only a suicidal criminal would do something that provokes an armed person to shoot them, as opposed to just retreating.
Thanks for that info, I was not comfortable using the word percentage for what its worth, I just couldnt think of a better one at the time.
The guy that got nailed a hundred grand, sounds like the case where a speeder was fined some obscene amount, simply cause he was rich. The reasoning behind that one, was that the normal fine was a financial deterrent to him, that it would be with a more average citizen. I dont think that was right, but somebodys courts did.
Declan
Sorry, this came out garbled. I meant I have made no plans to use my gun in self defense - I have not made sure it is easily accessible under my bed, etc., and in fact taken steps to make sure I will not have easy access to it if I wake up half-asleep in the middle of the night to a strange noise, etc.
Alcohol is quite heavily regulated.
Cigarettes are responsible for a few hundred thousand deaths annually. Perhaps we should start with the low-hanging fruit: what would the OP propose to be common-sense restrictions on smoking? Perhaps then we can take those lessons and apply them to other dangerous things.
Production and sale is heavily regulated for taxation and revenue reasons. Regulation of alcohol consumption for public safety reasons is quite lax, as evidenced by the fact that it kills almost 3x as many people each year as firearms.
Unlike alcohol and firearms, cigarettes do not cause even a small fraction of people to become a danger to others.
No, most gun owners are careless; by necessity, given why they have guns. Having guns available for easy use is careless, but if they aren’t then they are useless for the gun owner’s fantasized self-defense scenario. A gun that’s locked up and unloaded isn’t something you can grab in the middle of the night and kill [del]your children[/del] a burgler with.
A scenario that’s highly unlikely to happen. More likely the criminal either shoots the gun owner, or he grabs the gun while you are asleep or absent. Or most likely of all, the gun owner kills an innocent person. But hey, they died FOR FREEEDOM, so that makes it all OK.
No, secondhand smoke looks more and more dangerous the more it is studied. Plus smoke actually causes property damage in normal use; at least unlike smoking alcohol and firearms don’t corrode everything around them like some fantasy novel cursed artifact.
The CDC reports that 443,000 smokers die each year, and 49,000 die from secondhand smoke. That’s a much greater cause of death than either drunk driving or firearms. It’s a greater problem, no question.
So what are your solutions? Come on, you’re very concerned about unnecessary deaths. We should implement your solutions for the cigarette problem and then learn from the results, so we can learn how to tackle lesser problems. Make with the suggestions.
You are repeatedly claiming that the only utility of guns is for this “fantasized self-defense scenario”. Given the existence of a non-zero number of hunters and target shooters, this is demonstrably not the case, but since you are obviously not interested in a rational discussion I won’t bother to continue responding to you.