Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumI drove drunk today and nobody was hurt by it!
That proves we don't need drunk driving laws! Yay NDDA talking points!
(for the record, this is )
ETA: I didn't actually drive drunk today people. That's what the means.
ETA2: The reason this is relevant to the gun debate is that gun nuts often claim that the fact that they manage to walk around with a loaded gun without killing anyone demonstrates how safe it is. The point I'm making is that the same argument could be made about driving drunk, since only a small fraction of drunk drivers actually end up hurting anyone. I was hoping that all this was clear from the OP...
Response to DanTex (Original post)
1GirlieGirl This message was self-deleted by its author.
petronius
(26,580 posts)You need to work on your reaction time...
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)"Did you guys see Clint Eastwood talking to that chair??!11"
2on2u
(1,843 posts)the water heater, sprung a leak, shorted some wires, got a nasty electrical burn, went to the emergency room, waited for 6 hours to be treated. I think I'm gonna start drinking again.
brewens
(13,392 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)2on2u
(1,843 posts)no stalking involved during this mishap.
brewens
(13,392 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)It's just not worth the risk and I have respect for the law.
I could easily make a very insulting comment but I will merely choose to say that if you actually did drive drunk it reflects poorly on your character. You endangered a number of people because of your irresponsible actions.
I have legally carried a concealed handgun for over 15 years and I have never endangered anyone. I have drove a car for over 50 years and never caused an accident. Other people have run into the rear end of my car and in all cases I was stopped in a traffic jam.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That's what this thing means:
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)It fails to either wound or amuse.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... having failed to pass your "Who gets to call themselves a Democrat" Litmus Test by straying from your true ideology.
I don't believe I will have the strength to go on living -- thank goodness I have a firearm.
NOTE: This IS a valid example of sarcasm.
spin
(17,493 posts)My bad.
ileus
(15,396 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)has nothing to do with firearms or firearm policy.
Host, lock this thread please.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It addresses the stupidity of the argument that if one person manages to not kill someone, then it proves we don't need to restrict a given activity.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Trying to equate an illegal activity to a legal activity is ridiculous beyond belief.
Krispos needs to lock this thread like jpak's was.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The argument made by many gun fanatics is that they managed to carry a gun without hurting anyone. Anyone who drives drunk and makes it home alive can make the same argument about drunk driving.
The legality doesn't change the logical flaw in the anecdotal pro-gun argument. Instead of calling it "ridiculous", try to challenge the logic. Both are activities that potentially carry risks, but in most cases don't end up hurting anyone.
I wouldn't be surprised of krispos locks the thread -- he's demonstrated that he is not able to separate his politics from his hosting duties, but in truth this is a relevant thread.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the odds of a legal CCW, or cop for that matter, accidently harming someone is almost non existent. Drunk driving, not so much. There is also a matter of degree. A drunk driver can kill or maim several people and cause thousands of dollars worth of damage before being stopped. An ND, not even close.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)accidentally shooting someone or, for that, matter, shooting anyone period, however, I have rolled on dozens of drunk driving accidents where the victims where either injured or killed.
You can't even come close to equating legal concealed carry or even open carry to drunk driving, that's just ridiculous.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's still anecdotal, but it's not as dumb as "I CCed today and didn't kill anyone". BTW, I don't think that CCing and driving drunk are equally dangerous. In fact, I think DDing is horribly dangerous. That's why the fact that the "I did ________ today and didn't kill anyone" argument can be made with both CCing and DDing proves that it's a silly argument.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)and that's why I give no quarter to ANYONE I stop for suspicion of DDing, I don't give a flying fuck who it is, I am equally hard on Joe Citizen as I am on Govt. Officials.
I've seen the carnage, physical and psychological damage it does, that's why I am like I am.
BTW, I like the DDing, I'll use it more often, easier than spelling it out. Thx.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Of course, there are about 30,000 gun deaths a year, and only about 10,000 DD deaths. Then again, about 20,000 of those gun deaths are suicides, but on the other hand, about 7,000 of the DD deaths are the drunk drivers versus only about 3,000 innocent victims. And of those 3,000, about half were passengers in a car with a DDer. Which leaves only about 1,500 people killed by drunk driver who neither drove drunk or made the choice to get into a car with a drunk driver.
See how easy it is to whittle down statistics?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... were caused by legally licensed concealed carriers (drunk or sober)?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Of course, in some states everyone who could pass a background check is a legal concealed carrier, so, for example, Loughner was carrying his gun legally.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... non-suicide gun deaths are caused by persons ILLEGALLY possessing or carrying firearms. We ought to pass a law against ILLEGAL handguns ... oh ... wait ...
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)According to VPC, in the period 2007-2009, 151 people were killed by CCW permit holders.
According the the Century Council, in the same period 35,511 people were killed by drunk drivers.
Keep the ludicrous analogies coming. We expect nothing less.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Meanwhile, those that equate drunk driving with the legal carrying of a concealed gun have never, IMO, had to deal with the carnage of ruined lives that drunk drivers cause far more than legal CC citizens. I have dealt with more than I care to remember, accidents caused by an impaired driver while I have never yet had to deal with a irresponsible citizen with a CC permit, so laugh all you want, I'm happy you find it funny.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... that driving while intoxicated is illegal in every city and state in the US (even in most countries)? While carrying a firearm in accordance with local laws isn't?
So, while you might BELIEVE there is a moral equivalency between carrying a firearm sober and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated -- the law says you're wrong.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)elleng
(130,126 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)You've dropped quite the clunker here. Whew!
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I'll give you an E for effort though.
Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #32)
Post removed
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... insult.
Clames
(2,038 posts)...
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Whoa.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)For anti.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Consider, the risky behavior of drinking then operating machinery.
Alternatly it adds to the case that anti2A people often time resort to lies in their propaganda efforts.
No sarcasm intented.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Thanks to all for playing.