PDA

View Full Version : Drunk driving, etc.



Gurm
25th April 2000, 07:32
Himself brought up an interesting topic in the drug thread, so I thought I'd start a new one...

In the USA, what should be done about drunk driving and related driving issues?

I, for one, propose that we adopt Germany's stance on drunk driving... you do it once, and lose your license FOREVER. And, in some cases, your car as well.

I also think that no 16-year-old should be able to get their license after taking a classroom course. That's just WRONG. They should have to complete what SOME of us have taken already - a comprehensive precision driving course. If you can't put your car between two other cars on a closed course at 75 mph, you shouldn't be allowed to drive on the highway at all. Period.

And last but not least, I honestly think you should have to recertify yourself every few years. ESPECIALLY as you get older. Anyone over the age of 60 or 65 should have to get retested yearly, since (no offense to seniors intended) the likelihood of their abilities DRASTICALLY changing in a few months is MUCH more likely at that age.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

Compton
25th April 2000, 10:07
I did not know about Germany's law on drunk driving. I think that sounds like a great idea! I don't think that 16 year olds should be allowed to drive at all. I think the age limit should be 18.

The PIT
25th April 2000, 10:40
In the UK you pass the test and walk striaght down to show room and buy a car that can do 200 mph. That to me seems barmy. Younger drivers and drivers that have just past there test should be limited to cars of around 1000cc for the first 6000 miles. Certainly skid control should be part of the test.
It would also help if pubs stocked Alcohol free beer more readily and at same price as normal beer. This may make a few weaker hearted soles resist the temptation to drink.
More drivers need to be aware about the morning after and it's quite possible for them to be still over the limit.
I feel that once you get to sixty five you shouldn't be allowed to drive unless you have special needs. I see two many older drivers mearandering across lanes at great risks to themselfs and other road users.

Paddy
25th April 2000, 10:56
I agree, I have seen too many 17 year olds (and 65+ for that matter) driving in the middle lane of the M1 at 55 MPH.

In Ireland you get 'R' plates after passing your test. I think you a restricted to 45 MPH for the next 1/2 years.

- the ammount of times that I have been pulled over for driving my sisters car is unbelievable!

Jammrock
25th April 2000, 11:32
I think we should adopt the Saudi Arabian drunk driving law...or at least this was their law at one time, don't know if it still stands. If you are caught drunk driving they take you to the side of the road and cut off your head (the upper one) with a sword. This is also the country where alcohol is illegal all together...

Jammrock

------------------
Athlon 650, Biostar board, 128 MB PC133 (Crucial), G400 32 MB DH, SB Live! w/ Digital I/O, 10/100 NIC, lots of case fans, etc...

Jorden
25th April 2000, 12:32
The PIT and Patrick: Isn't the age allowed into a bar or pub in the UK 18 to 21? (18 I think). Plus, what's with the impressive L on the car then, or is that only for learning drivers? Maybe you should have that L on your car until you are 22 http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Jord.

SCompRacer
25th April 2000, 12:50
I believe it was Socrates who said "people will expand to the limits society will tolerate." Even if he didn't, it sounds like something he would say and rings with total truth.

If you wanted to assign a percentage to the one thing that has led to many problems the US has today, it is the result of the application of too much liberal thinking. If that is too much to believe or curtail, the result becomes the price we pay for our freedom.

Brian R.
25th April 2000, 12:52
Want a fun topic to go along with this? Try gun control. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Brian R. (edited 25 April 2000).]

SCompRacer
25th April 2000, 13:10
Personally I have never had any problems with controlling a gun. Except maybe the M14 in full auto with the standard pistol grip type stock. Anything after the first few rounds the muzzle went skywards, no matter how big you were or how much you leaned into it. The E2 stock solved that however, following the FN-FAL straight stock type design.

Then there was the Clint Fowler prepared, double lugged, glass bedded National Match M14 with the Krieger 1 in 10 twist stainless barrel. That weapon would shoot.

The thing about any type of weapon control is take one away and another will take it's place. I believe the sole reason for gun control is an attempt to make the act of killing or harming someone more personal. You have to get alot closer with any other type of weapon, like a club or knife, more risk for the assailant too.



[This message has been edited by SCompRacer (edited 25 April 2000).]

Compton
25th April 2000, 13:58
I'm not really for gun control at all. In fact I wish I had an M-16 for some of those 16yr old drivers.

The PIT
26th April 2000, 00:14
The legal age to drink in the UK is 18 many slip in younger of course and theres nothing to stop drinking at home. You can past your test at 17.
If your Motorbike owner your limited to what you can get after the test. Why this isn't same for car owners I can only wonder.
As for the middle lane hoggers as soon as overtaking on the left is legalised the better. And before any starts saying thats dangerous, your supposed to check the left hand side before you pull back just in case either someones joined the motorway / road or pulled up alongside you. If you can't check the mirror and look over the shoulder you shouldn't be driving period.

cancer
26th April 2000, 01:51
Gurm Iím with you although I think losing you licence forever is a bit harsh. You bust a drunk driver, slap a nasty fine on them, get 'em off the road for at least 12 months and stick 'em in a room for 8 hours a day for a week showing them footage of bloody roadside accidents. Do it again, double it, and third time hit 'em for 5 years. If they keep doing it then they aren't human.

One of my pet hates is seeing people in their 'advancing years' driving Volvos. If I see these people they sure as shit ain't doing the speed limit (less than) and they sure as hell don't know what those white dotted lines are for.

As for guns, this is where I don't understand yanks (I apologise in advance for offending my fellow American MURCers). Hand guns, rifles, shotguns etc were created for one purpose only, to kill other people. Why the hell has three quarters of the population got one of these things (I only have vague idea on actual statistics). You guys have the highest firearm incidents in the world beside maybe a nation at war. There is the saying,
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I tend not to agree. Would the same person who has killed another person done the same thing if they didn't have a firearm? SCompRacer you raise an interesting point,

You have to get a lot closer with any other type of weapon, like a club or knife, more risk for the assailant too.

Due of this risk between you and the assailant & the difficultly posed to harm each other, is there the same potential for fatal harm. I believe

...the act of killing or harming someone [is] more personal. is a good thing, maybe then a little more thought would go into the brain of these people before the commit to something stupidly irreversible.

Obviously there may be some exceptions to not having guns. For example farmers, special unit police forces & the armed forces.

There are always going to wackos out there who have had a really bad day. At lease if there is strict gun controls out there this same person canít take several people with him. Wasnít there a case of a couple young kids, not even teenagers (in Washington I think) who got into a gunfight at a city zoo earlier this week. Jesus if this isnít a good reason for gun control, what is?
Cheers.


------------------
Aopen HX08 full tower case, Asus P3V4X bios 1.03, P!!! FC-PGA 550e @733, 160M pc100 sdram, Matrox G400MAX bios 1.4 PDesk 5.52.015, Seagate 28.5G Ultra ATA66 7200rpm HD, Pioneer 103s DVD 6X/32X drive, SB AWE64 Gold ISA sound card, SMC pci ethernet adaptor, Castlewood Orb 2.2G media drive, Nortel 100 cable modem, Mitsubishi 1995 19in monitor, occasionally use dualhead for dvd on a Sony 80cm Wega TV, MS natural keyboard, MS Intellimouse Explorer,
Win98SE 4.10.2222A, DX7a.




[This message has been edited by cancer (edited 26 April 2000).]

SteveC
26th April 2000, 02:04
I'm coming up 20 next month and have been driving for the best part of three years. I will fully agree that cars young (or anyone just passed their test) drive for the first two years are limited to 1000cc or similar. It's true what the PIT said - I know people who for their first car, a few weeks after their 17th birthday buying a car easily capable of 150+MPH. Why?
As for drink driving - my brother was caught a couple of years back - he left the car at the end of our road, went out for the night, then on the way home, he brought the car back the 1/3 mile home. He was caught, fined, and banned for 18 months. Serves him right. He's never done it again!
Another point to raise is why is almost every new car these days capable of 120+MPH? The speed limit is 70MPH, is it not? OK, there is the need every now and then for the extra overtaking speed to get out of trouble, but come on.

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

SCompRacer
26th April 2000, 02:29
I disagree cancer.

People kill people, no matter what means they use or whether it is with or without intent, on purpose or by accident. It can be with a car, (under the influence or not), with a gun, knife, club. But rather than hold an individual responsible for their actions, it is always due to the fact a firearm was available, a manufacturer made something and did not state it could be misused to kill another, they had a bad childhood, they were denied the same opportunities others had, etc.

Ownership should mean responsibility, no matter what it pertains too. This can to pertain to a car, a legally owned weapon, a computer and even a dog. Society has evolved into one that has no respect for their fellow human being, and that is the core of the problem.

The same emotional outbursts that occur in posts on the internet are similar to those that lead to acts of violence. Someone loses control and says something that hurts another, whether it is intentional or not. Of course no one is physically harmed, it is done with finger strokes on a keyboard, often to a faceless individual, but the lack of control in the heat of the moment is the fault.

[This message has been edited by SCompRacer (edited 26 April 2000).]

Jammrock
26th April 2000, 06:11
*Steps up on his cast iron soap box*

I own guns, but not for self-defense or aggression either. I like range shooting, its a sport and I think its fun. My Dad taught me how to shoot. We used to go range shooting all the time. I don't hunt, and when the guns are not in use, the bolt is out and the bullets are in a different part of the house.

Guns do make a big difference in whether a homocide/murder happens, but if someone really wants someone else dead, they'll find a way.

I feel the main problem are the people. I know lots of people with guns, but my community is a calm, laid back place so nobody cares. Once a decade or so some idiot punk kid may try a drive by shooting with a 9mm hand gun (yes it happened here, tells you how smart some kids are these days), but besides that, nothing really.

And curbing gun purchasing isn't going to help much. Ever been to the sticks in the US (no offense to any MURC'er who may live there). I have a friend who lives in south Kansas. The county Sheriff owns the local gun store and he sells full-auto mod kit for some his guns. He won't install them, but he sells them non-the-less. People down there buy and sell guns to each other like an 8 year old does Pokemon cards. None of it's registered, nobody goes through a background check and nobody cares. If I wanted a full-auto AK-47, 1200 rounds and clips for it all, I could have it in less than a week, just by going down south and asking a few people.

Now take a look at Switzerland (if a Swiss MURC'er thinks I'm dead wrong, please correct me), from what I have read, shooting is like a national past time. Just about every home has a rifle or gun of some sort, yet their crime rate is low. What does that mean: 1) People are scared to death to attack anyone because they know the other guy has a gun and can use it or 2) the people just aren't that violent and are smart enough to know how to solve a problem without a gun. I'm not Swiss, but I would think 2 would be the more logical choice.

Now I know most Americans are thinking, "damn Republican," right now, but oh well. Nobodies thinks the same.

I do on the other hand think that kids should NEVER get access to guns. I think it should be law for every household that has children under the age of 18 to have a key and combo gun safe where all guns and ammunition should be stored.

Its fine to own guns, just not fine to be irresponsible with them.

*Steps down from his cast iron soap box to let the next person rant*

Jammrock

Gurm
26th April 2000, 06:51
Ok, I'm back. Some more thoughts:

DRUNK DRIVING:

If you think it's harsh to lose your license and your car, tough. It's harsher to lose your mother or sister or best friend because some ****ole couldn't control him or herself. People are stupid. People need to understand that there are DIRE consequences to their actions. In the USA right now, I could drive drunk and get caught DOZENS of times before I was actually locked up for any serious period of time. They will NEVER confiscate my vehicle, and the penalties for driving without a license are minor. And there is no level of drunk driving that will cause you to lose your license for good. A couple years is the maximum.

They just had to deal with one guy near here (Boston) recently - he had been CONVICTED of drunk driving... get ready... 15 TIMES in the past 5 years. This time he killed 4 people, so he's doing time. If they had gotten this ****ole off the road one of the OTHER 15 times, those 4 people would be alive.

I drove "tipsy" once. I was probably blowing close to the legal limit, but I was underage. I went about a half-mile, and it scared the living CRAP out of me. NEVER EVER EVER AGAIN.

Some people can't make this realization. Those people should not be allowed to have a car. Period.

GUN CONTROL:

I am a big fan of zero-tolerance laws. If you shoot someone in cold blood you should go to jail FOREVER. There are always exceptions. I realise that. There is always the one cold-blooded murderer that will turn himself around and be reformed. But the general case shows that violent felons repeat their crimes.

I know there's no way to live in a society as free as the USA and have laws like that. But it's just how I feel the world ought to be in a perfect version.

I'm all for having guns. I haven't got one yet, because I haven't had the time to devote to the safety and training classes. I can shoot - I'm a damn good shot with a pistol actually, but I suck with rifles. But I want to be responsible, so until I have the time to invest in the training and safety classes and the proper gun locks and equipment, my home is gun-free.

Why have a gun, you ask? Protection. Deterrence. Peacekeeping. All the naysayers can talk all they want, but there is a town in Texas where the entire adult population is required to CARRY a gun AT ALL TIMES. They are all licensed and trained. And you know what? There hasn't been a violent crime in that town since the law went into effect. Not one. No domestic violence, no robbery, no rape, no murder, no nothing. And it isn't a small town.

So anyone who says arming the populace doesn't work is obviously confused.


Ok, I'm done for now.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

merchant2112
26th April 2000, 09:55
jam i agree with you, but gun locks i don't use them, (i don't have any children in my home.) i also donít keep the guns loaded either. my smith has a clip safety as well a a decocking lever and pin lock. whatís all that well it means that a round can be safely left in the chamber and unless the clip is in the gun it can't fire a decocker drops the hammer and blocks it from hitting the firing pin. a pin lock is a small bar witch locks the firing pin in place so that it cant move (by shock and cause a round to go off.) these are called safeties and are built into the gun. that is all that is needed to stop a adult from accidentally discharging a handgun.

hum let me see officer i accidentally placed the clip in the handle i accidentally pushed a lever that requires over 20lbs of force to move it up, accidentally lifted the gun and aimed it at my (insert wife boyfriend ect.. here) and pulled the trigger.) Now a simple trigger lock will work for stopping a child from firing this gun use a keyless one like a pill bottle i would hate to look for a key while someone is in my house and i could not get out with out endangering myself or family.)

my point is this, just this morning in a local paper they were showing this "new gun alarm lock. witch evolved a metal bar going up through the magazine and looping thorough the ejection port on the hand gun (with a large block off to the side witch housed some kind of speaker. this is nice but over time would make the gun useless as the spring witch forces the slide back into place (loading ammo automatically would become damaged from being left in a compressed state all the time (the only way it could be left in order for a bar to pass though the magazine well and ejection port.) oh never mind that it looks like it would take 10 min to get the thing off and load the gun if the gun would still work that is.

i don't carry i don't even go to the range any more or hunt don't have the time. but i used to shoot competition (DCM and ISPIC) leaving a loaded gun around children is insane but having them around and not teaching them about them is too, there is no lock, key or code or both, that a kid big enough walk and smart enough to see you punch in or remember where you keep your spare keys can't get into. if they want gun they will get gun. if they want gun but know what gun is (really know what gun is and can do) they certainly are not going to pick one up and show it to there bud and blow there head off by accident because they should know that any gun should be treated as if it were loaded even if you just finished unloading it yourself. gun locks are good for stopping uneducated persons from truly accidentally hurting or killing themselves or others but not much else. because if they want gun they will get gun regardless of what you or anyone else dose. The only child safe gun is one that is a non-working gun.

hey grum, i like 0 tol laws as well but lets go once step further shall we (im serious) instead of locking a "caught dead bang, not a shred of dough, on tape holding the weapon over the body ect... type guilty person up for life with no chance of getting out, we should execute them (gas , beheading, firing squad ect.. ) why should we use taxes to house some until the end of their life. now for lesser crimes you could always go back to the old testament (eye for an eye type laws.)

personally for convicted killers this would work well. execute the killer in the same manner as he or she did the victim. think about it you would think twice about killing some one or driving drunk (if you hit and killed someone) if you know that you would be executed in the same manner if caught and convicted. (oh no appeals either no sit on death roe for 20 years while tying up the courts in Bs. remember were talking about red handed no drought you were filmed lots of people saw you do it type of guilty here. you would definite think twice about chopping someone up with an ax or running them over with a car while drunk. speaking about drunk driving i mean take away car and license then 1 year in jail then drug control only if no death's are involved. first time a death or injury is involved you get treated just like you were sober and did it on propose (you made the choice to get in the car drunk you live with the consequences.)


[This message has been edited by merchant2112 (edited 26 April 2000).]

The PIT
26th April 2000, 16:19
Theres on daft thing about Uk law. If you get drunk and sleap in the car or get caught taking something out of the car the Police can do you for being drunk in charge. This has happened to a friend of mine.
Also on the speed of cars have you noticed with modern cars driving at Seventy makes you feel like you're doing 20mph. It's very easy to wind the car up to a speed that you feel comfortable and then notice the speedo is a little higher than it should be.
However the extra power and speed is very useful when stopping isn't the option and you got to drive round the vehicle. It's also very useful getting rid of ****oles who trying to block you, tailgate for some reason flying around there pee brain.

merchant2112
26th April 2000, 16:22
SCompRacer, oohh national match m14, thatís a weapon worthy of col. hackworth (i think heís either a gen. now or retired) any way. nice gun (me i like long guns my personal fav at the moment remington model 700bdl 30.06 w/ removable chamber insert for 7.62 NATO, 60mm auto ranging scope floated heavy barrel and a 4.5 lbs. trigger, (detach box mag modified 10 rounds) black glass stock. (all metal parts have been refinished (active black magic) there is no reflective parts on the rifle (not even the bolt)

my views. on drugs [ make them legal cheap and everywhere. Within 1 year drug crime will drop drastically. and illegal drug trafficking will disappear overnight.

on drunk driving, take thire car and their license the first time, get caught a second time lock them up for a year. a third time well there are cretin drugs that you can be addicted to that will make drinking impossible (if you drink even one sip you get violently ill, and if you stop taking the drug you get even more violently ill, (this program will also involve a monitored program where a convicted driver would have to report so often for administered injections.

teen driving (under 18 and even most 18year olds have maturity problems) drive badly because most "kids" don't think about what they are doing or what could happen. under 18 no license period. unless it is a requirement for medical reasons. as this is probably not a reality in our nice world where most moms and dads don't know what there kids are doing never mind care what they are doing I say if we have to give them a license make it a daylight license only and if the young driver gets in a accident that is his fault then take that license away until he/she is 18

gun control. Well some of my friends would probably be surprised if they read this seeing as I have 12 rifles and 2 pistols ,but Iím for gun control. I believe in extensive background checks, for UN licensed persons only. If you have a licensee you should not have to wait. Make all permits/licensees with photoís. so there can be no mistakes. (in CT. the old license was a non photo one and anytime I bought a gun I was never asked to show a photo id.) background checks for licensed persons are made at the time the license is issued and every time it is renewed. Built in gun lock devises will save lives but not the ones they are meant to. They will hamper legal gun owners use of a fire arm in a defensive action (please wait mister robber rapist mugger killer while I unlock my gun ????? I donít think so. Teach our children as early as possible that a gun is dangerous (SHOW THEM DONĒT TELL THEM DONíT TOUCH THEY ARENíT SMART ENOUGH FOR THAT.) I know a kid who went shooting (at a range) all the time so his mom bought him a 22, he did not under stand that the bullet coming out of the gun could shoot though more than paper. He had never seen what a bullet looked like after it came out of the gun so he tried to catch one and shoot himself in the hand. (and he was around guns a lot. but no one ever showed him what a gun is capable of. Kids are curious if you donít show them they will try and find out on their own.
Back to gunlocks, gun locks will be defeated by criminals. Every time. Just the idea of a criminal having a gun is illegal do you think that a criminal with a illegal firearm is going to use a legal gun lock on his stolen gun. Trigger locks can be removed with a hacksaw, jewelers saw, drills ectÖ.) eltronic smart guns can be jammed (one I saw used a radio transmitter if you over load the bands the gun wouldnít work for anyone. (including the officer) oh well I could go on and on this but the only real gun control is education and maybe control the ammo. Because it really isnít the gun, a gun is a tool . itís the nut behind the gun. But if your one of those who still want to spout guns do kill people then think a little harder. Guns donít kill people the ammo in the guns kill people. (hollow points donít wound they hit penetrate and expand they kill) a gun with out ammo is an expensive club.

Pelle
29th April 2000, 01:33
Just FYI: you don't lose your driving license forever when driving drunk in Germany. It can get pretty expensive, depending on how much you drank, and the license can be gone for a pretty long time, but to be rid of it, you have to be really drunk and even then you have a chance of getting it back after passing a psychological test.

The PIT
29th April 2000, 10:05
Pelle What form do those tests take? Throwing someone into the bar with a few marks and see if they can resist a drink?

Helevitia
29th April 2000, 22:06
Well, I got something to get off my chest.

I'll try to make it short. My best friend of 15 years is in a wheel chair and is paralyzed from the waste down because a drunk driver swerved off of the side of the road and hit him, his sister, and his girlfriend. His 9 year old brother watched the whole thing happen and my bestfriend flew thirty feet, hit someone else and slammed into a metal fence which bent the first 6 inches of the metal post at a 90 degree angle. The guy that he hit had both of his legs broken and both his sister and his girlfriend died. All of this happened when we were 14. I am now 28.
Last October, My bestfriend's brother slammed into the back of a honda with his Nissan pick-up and killed a 17 year old girl that was sitting in the back. He was so intoxicated that he hit the vehicle at 60 MPH on a street, not the highway.
My bestfriend with whom I've partied with several times over the years, quit drinking and smoking pot because of this latest incident and said "Dave, I finally realize that alcohol and drugs have ruined my family's life".
I sit here typing this, drinking a beer wondering why it takes such a tragedy such as my friends to convince people that drinking+driving are very bad. My hands are tied as I will drink beer and drive. The worst part is, I haven't even told you the whole story.

I just thought I'd share my story for others to see.

Dave

Compton
30th April 2000, 09:29
Another point to raise is why is almost every new car these days capable of 120+MPH?

I have an 84 Chevrolet Caprice and the speedometer only goes up to 85 but it can go much faster than 120MPH!! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/icons/icon2.gifhttp://forums.murc.ws/ubb/icons/icon2.gifhttp://forums.murc.ws/ubb/icons/icon2.gifhttp://forums.murc.ws/ubb/icons/icon2.gifhttp://forums.murc.ws/ubb/icons/icon2.gif

Gurm
1st May 2000, 16:43
C'mon, the Bugatti could do close to 200Mph in the 30's.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

LAMFDTK
2nd May 2000, 17:23
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
UN licensed persons only? If the UN ever mandates a law that I have to follow
here in the US ..I'm going to go to WAR! Along with a whole lot of other Constitutional
Americans! I have a real tough time with the Liberal point of view concerning just
about everything! heheh Take away the guns from law abiding folks and leave the
criminals to run free! Its going on right now in the <a href="http://nraila.org/research/2http://nraila.org/research/20000302-RegistrationLicensing-001.shtml">UK</a>
and in <a href="http://nraila.org/research/20000329-BanningGuns-001.shtml">Australia</a>.
Guns for the crooks only...Its really easy to figure the whole situation out. Once
Americans are dis-armed by the NWO the Country is finished. Clintoon (delusions
of adequacy.) is working his heart out on this. His feet are standing in the blood
of murdered children and other victims in 5 mins after a horrific act is committed,
calling for new Gun laws. Go to a Gun show and see if you can just walk in and
buy a firearm. In any state...never happen. If the laws that are in place now
were ever enforced things would be a whole lot different. 2000 children took guns
into schools last year and Janet El~Reno and her monkey justice dept. (saving
me from Bill Gates) prosecuted 3....Check it out... Thank god for the <a href="http://nraila.org/research/19990729-BillofRightsCivilRights-005.html">Right
to Bear ARMS!</a> Its the <a href="http://nraila.org/research/19990729-BillofRightsCivilRights-004.html">2nd
Ammendendment</a> not the 48th the 2nd. <a href="http://www.nrahq.com/givejoinhelp/membership/application.cgi%20">Join
the NRA now ! </a>
</body>

[This message has been edited by LAMFDTK (edited 03 May 2000).]

[This message has been edited by LAMFDTK (edited 03 May 2000).]

merchant2112
3rd May 2000, 03:22
LAMFDTK, maybe I should have used non instead of UN. I meant non-licensed persons. Not united nations. What I mean by a license is not really that but a photo id that certifies that the holder has gone through an extensive background check. FBI, local, etc. so that the holder can walk into any gun shop, show ect... and buy what he or she wants and walk out with it. This would be renewable say every 5 years like the state permits we have now for pistols and revolvers. (Witch I have.) Now I would prefer no waiting periods but we have to have some way of keeping the firearms out of the criminals too stupid to acquire a stolen gun.

[This message has been edited by merchant2112 (edited 04 May 2000).]

Gurm
3rd May 2000, 06:05
I am with LAM. I don't currently own a gun, for reasons stated above. But I am a card-carrying member of the NRA - not because I agree with all of their philosophies and methodologies, but because I believe very seriously in our constitutional rights.

And I'm not talking about what MOST people think are our constitutional rights. It's not your right to not be insulted, or to never have to feel like you're persecuted, or to have money, or even to be happiness. It's your right not to have your PURSUIT of happiness abridged. It's also your right to have a gun - whether or not the FBI, Interpol, or the police think it's a good idea.

Now, if you're convicted of a crime, you get some (if not all) of your rights taken away. You have waived them by... robbing, murdering, or whatever. But if you start putting someone in control of whether or not I'm "worthy" of owning a gun, you start taking away my rights. And I won't let you. I'll go buy the gun I haven't gotten yet, and use it to protect myself.

K?

- Gurm

LAMFDTK
3rd May 2000, 08:39
merchant2112 I thought I was the only horrible speller!

merchant2112
4th May 2000, 03:43
you think this is bad, you should see when i really don't check (read drinking too much on wed, or friday night.)

Himself
4th May 2000, 20:23
I think in general that laws should be reviewed to see how effective they are. They can never be perfect when you are fighting human behaviour but some solutions are better than others. Or maybe there are no good laws to get people to behave themselves. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif