Alcohol and Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
or using mouthwash, Bianca, etc.
Click to expand...

This isn't true. Yes mouthwash will give you a temporary "BAC" of up to a .44 due to the fact its in your mouth. However if you swig it when you get pulled over, from the time you get pulled over to the time the officer gets you out of the car your fictional bac will be almost non existant. Not to mention you would be able to pass field sobriety tests as well.

Actually, I bet if the drunk people had BACs of 0.20%, they'd still cause fewer accidents. Most vaguely responsible people, if they get that drunk, but still feel the need to drive home, will pull over to the curb and creep along at 5 mph. That's even the #1 sign for police that someone's driving drunk.
Click to expand...
The average BAC of a OWI in my state is around a .18, and .20 most people have a hard time standing without falling over. Curbing at 5 mph isn't the number one sign someone is drunk since I have rarely ever see it. The main thing I see is people taking turns really wide, having trouble staying in their lane, and driving slower. Some people drive really aggressively too. Sure curbing at 5 mph would suggest that they are likely drunk, however its so uncommon compared to everything else thats out there.

Considering most people can't really stand without support at .2s, Its highly unlikely that they will be able to handle a car better then a person on a cell phone.
 
I view alcohol the same way as I view guns actually. I want to see less regulation on getting either of them and stricter laws on the misuse of these items!

Regulating at what hours, what days and how old you have to be to get alcohol punishes responsible people and all because others didn't use it responsibly.

Same thing with guns, these restrictions punish the good people just because a handful of people couldn't be responsible. How about we legalize everything and start punishing the stupid people.

Get drunk and drive, 10 years in prison.
Point a loaded gun at someone 10 years in prison.

Regulating items stops nothing, lets just punish those that miss use those items.
 
Get drunk and drive, 10 years in prison.
Point a loaded gun at someone 10 years in prison.
Click to expand...

I like the way you think. Still, the drinker should be driving. I recall one case in Cass County IN were a guy came out a bar, decided he was too drunk to drive and got in the bed of his pick-up to sleep it off. He was arrested, charged and convicted of DWI since the keys were in the ignition he had the 'intention to drive' under state law.

I would also add get drunk and shoot should also be a felony.
 
yeah I know a guy that got a DUI cause he was in the parking lot and had his keys on him. I had to sleep it off one night when I was in AZ and I knew from my buddies DUI that the keys had to be 15 to 25 meters away, so I unlocked my car then paced off 30 meters and put my keys under a rock and then returned to the car, sure enough the cops knocked on my window and wanted to give me a DUI, but when I told them where the keys were they didn't believe me at first and when they found them they laughed and said have a good night and left me alone.

There are plenty of laws against possessing a firearm while intoxicated let alone shooting it, not sure what the penalty is.
 
how about cigarettes, there is no good healthy use for them, every smart person knows that tobacco kills whether you smoke it or chew it, or put it in any other body orifice. We all know it has formaldehyde and cyanide in it. It kills tons of people every year and the consequences of second hand smoke are still being discovered, it doesn't taste good, it doesn't get you high or make you smart or strong or anything good. It costs health-care and insurance companies tons of money and ruins lives and creates tons of property damage from fires, and the only people cigarette companies can deceive to start smoking are young or teenage kids and yet we will never ban it.
 
The problem is that as society becomes more collective, you are no longer seen as an individual but as a member society. Anytime you are seen as part of a group, you are seen as no more capable than the least member of that group. Therefore, if some people can't behave with X, then NOBODY can have X.
 
Hi modwerdna,

That guestion gives me mixed feelings. In the end it's a personal choice, while it does cost the insurance companies much money they exist to assign risks and most smokers insurance reflect the cost of their habit. My uncle and my Dad didn't agree on much but one thing they had in common was the adage that everyone has a God given right to <blank> up their lives as they see fit. Calling in government to protect smokers from themselves violates that principle. As for the fires cigarettes start--- I believe arson with property damage is a crime in most, if not all, states of the Union.
 
but the problem with that is that multimillion dollar companies have free range to use every sort of media, advertising, suggestive means, and anything else they can use to brainwash and poison innocent young children into think smoking is cool or something they should do. They especially use means of advertising that no one regulates and then they make sure that their product is as addictive as it can be. And with their huge profits from desperately addicted customers they buy up tons of premium growing land that should be used for America's food needs all because innocent impressionable kids get deceived and addicted. If big companies were doing this with cocaine or heroin to your children you would expect your government to step in immediately and help stop it because last I checked very few people can compete that. That's my point
 
how about cigarettes, there is no good healthy use for them, every smart person knows that tobacco kills whether you smoke it or chew it, or put it in any other body orifice. We all know it has formaldehyde and cyanide in it. It kills tons of people every year and the consequences of second hand smoke are still being discovered, it doesn't taste good, it doesn't get you high or make you smart or strong or anything good. It costs health-care and insurance companies tons of money and ruins lives and creates tons of property damage from fires, and the only people cigarette companies can deceive to start smoking are young or teenage kids and yet we will never ban it.

but the problem with that is that multimillion dollar companies have free range to use every sort of media, advertising, suggestive means, and anything else they can use to brainwash and poison innocent young children into think smoking is cool or something they should do. They especially use means of advertising that no one regulates and then they make sure that their product is as addictive as it can be. And with their huge profits from desperately addicted customers they buy up tons of premium growing land that should be used for America's food needs all because innocent impressionable kids get deceived and addicted. If big companies were doing this with cocaine or heroin to your children you would expect your government to step in immediately and help stop it because last I checked very few people can compete that. That's my point
Click to expand...

I think I could make very similar points about television, vacations, jewlery, restaurants, the internet....:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

0
  • Locked
Guns vs. Alcohol...
Replies
22
Views
2K
SDAL
S
Z
  • Locked
Applying A Gun-Control Argument To Alcohol
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
charon
C
O
carrying in a facility that serves alcohol?
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
3K
Charlie98
Charlie98
JackBurtonJr
  • Locked
Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?
2
Replies
45
Views
1K
Robert
Robert
S
  • Locked
Gun laws with a poison pill -- your thoughts?
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
JRH6856
JRH6856
Back
Top