4 ms·

> removing and restricting rights for every person DOES NOT STOP THIS BEHAVIOR. DUI laws don't stop DUI related accidents, but having and enforcing DUI laws de

> removing and restricting rights for every person DOES NOT STOP THIS BEHAVIOR. DUI laws don't stop DUI related accidents, but having and enforcing DUI laws decrease DUI related accidents. And while you can't prevent anything 100% of the time, you can actively work toward reducing the chances of something bad happening.

buildzr 7y ago
And I'm sure permanently banning everyone who ever gets a DUI from driving would also decrease DUIs, but there's an important line to draw with how we enforce those.
syshum 7y ago
We should abolish DUI Laws, If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage. Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway. https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/ https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/
spaginal 7y ago
That is the equivalence of saying murder laws prevent or reduce murder, when here we are discussing mass murder events. There is an underlying issue in our society that creates this lashing out behavior, and hiding it under the precept of preventing radicalization instead of engaging it will not stop the behavior. We are all adults here. I have children, as many of you do. When your children exhibit a bad behavior, do you ban it or engage it and fix it? I can tell my children to stop doing something until I’m blue in the face. I can BAN the action from my home, but until I engage with them it’s meaningless and only serves to make me feel good while they continue said things behind my back. My point is, let’s look at the deeper issues instead of the emotional knee jerk tripe of ban guns, ban speech, blame racism. We have a problem that requires more rational behavior and level heads.
hgoel 7y ago
Now apply that logic to the war on drugs. Tell us how the war on drugs has actually helped society and how similarly banning 'hate speech' will result in a net decrease in the damage these ideologies cause.

buildzr 7y ago

And I'm sure permanently banning everyone who ever gets a DUI from driving would also decrease DUIs, but there's an important line to draw with how we enforce those.

syshum 7y ago

We should abolish DUI Laws, If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage. Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway. https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/ https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/

spaginal 7y ago

That is the equivalence of saying murder laws prevent or reduce murder, when here we are discussing mass murder events. There is an underlying issue in our society that creates this lashing out behavior, and hiding it under the precept of preventing radicalization instead of engaging it will not stop the behavior. We are all adults here. I have children, as many of you do. When your children exhibit a bad behavior, do you ban it or engage it and fix it? I can tell my children to stop doing something until I’m blue in the face. I can BAN the action from my home, but until I engage with them it’s meaningless and only serves to make me feel good while they continue said things behind my back. My point is, let’s look at the deeper issues instead of the emotional knee jerk tripe of ban guns, ban speech, blame racism. We have a problem that requires more rational behavior and level heads.

hgoel 7y ago

Now apply that logic to the war on drugs. Tell us how the war on drugs has actually helped society and how similarly banning 'hate speech' will result in a net decrease in the damage these ideologies cause.