5 ms·

Good. If I'm licensed to carry a handgun and one day get drunk and fire my gun at a crowd without hitting anyone, how long should I have to wait before being al

Good. If I'm licensed to carry a handgun and one day get drunk and fire my gun at a crowd without hitting anyone, how long should I have to wait before being allowed to carry a gun in public again? Most people would say I should never be trusted with lethal force again.

rpmisms 7y ago
That CIA agent did it.
- dang 7y ago
  Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait to Hacker News? You've been doing it a lot, unfortunately, and we're trying for a bit better than internet default here. If you'd please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - rpmisms 7y ago
    I can't edit now, but I was referring to the federal agent in Vegas who did exactly what the GP said. Otherwise, yes, of course. Thanks for the reminder.
    - dang 7y ago
      Ok, I've opened the comment so you can edit it if you want to (and if there's a substantive point there).
perl4ever 7y ago
Well, that analogy seems to me to apply also to any instance of an "accident" where the driver is at fault. However, that would be a significant change to society, and also, (at least in the area of the US I'm familiar with) the police and legal system don't normally pass judgment on who is at fault in an accident, unless there is a specific law broken; it is up to the insurance companies.
- Causality1 7y ago
  If the driver deliberately impaired their ability to drive, yes.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    That seems unfair, to give a pass to people who are naturally terrible drivers without drugs. Meaning poor reflexes, decision making, risk management, or aggression.
    - Causality1 7y ago
      The onus for that would seem to fall on the licensing exam and on the police.
lopmotr 7y ago
It's a false equivalence. We're much more tolerant of the dangers of driving because of the positive value it brings. A gun is rarely essential for somebody's work but driving often is. That's also why some countries ban guns but allow cars despite cars killing far more people. It can see unfair. There's a truck driver in my country who killed two people with his truck on two separate occasions. Both his fault. But he'll still be allowed to drive again after maybe a 6-12 month suspension. The way I try to feel comfortable with such seeming injustice is to see road accidents as random bad luck. So by using the road, you're playing Russian roulette. You never know what might kill you or whose fault it might be, including your own. Extreme punishment for the tiny subset of dangerous drivers who make certain mistakes and happen to be unlucky enough to get caught won't really make it much safer. People still risk their own lives driving dangerously, after all, so even the death penalty for drink driving won't stop people doing it.
- squiggleblaz 7y ago
  I don't see why I should be at excess risk of dying because I tripped on my shoelace or badly maintained road while walking to the shops. In particular, a person walking to buy milk shouldn't be at excess risk of death even through their own fault. If you hit your head when you fall and die from it, then that happens. But if you survive the fall, another person going to pick up their children from soccer shouldn't be excused from killing you just because it happened on the road. Using a road shouldn't be Russian roulette.

rpmisms 7y ago

That CIA agent did it.

dang 7y ago
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait to Hacker News? You've been doing it a lot, unfortunately, and we're trying for a bit better than internet default here. If you'd please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- rpmisms 7y ago
  I can't edit now, but I was referring to the federal agent in Vegas who did exactly what the GP said. Otherwise, yes, of course. Thanks for the reminder.
  - dang 7y ago
    Ok, I've opened the comment so you can edit it if you want to (and if there's a substantive point there).

perl4ever 7y ago

Well, that analogy seems to me to apply also to any instance of an "accident" where the driver is at fault. However, that would be a significant change to society, and also, (at least in the area of the US I'm familiar with) the police and legal system don't normally pass judgment on who is at fault in an accident, unless there is a specific law broken; it is up to the insurance companies.

Causality1 7y ago
If the driver deliberately impaired their ability to drive, yes.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  That seems unfair, to give a pass to people who are naturally terrible drivers without drugs. Meaning poor reflexes, decision making, risk management, or aggression.
  - Causality1 7y ago
    The onus for that would seem to fall on the licensing exam and on the police.

lopmotr 7y ago

It's a false equivalence. We're much more tolerant of the dangers of driving because of the positive value it brings. A gun is rarely essential for somebody's work but driving often is. That's also why some countries ban guns but allow cars despite cars killing far more people. It can see unfair. There's a truck driver in my country who killed two people with his truck on two separate occasions. Both his fault. But he'll still be allowed to drive again after maybe a 6-12 month suspension. The way I try to feel comfortable with such seeming injustice is to see road accidents as random bad luck. So by using the road, you're playing Russian roulette. You never know what might kill you or whose fault it might be, including your own. Extreme punishment for the tiny subset of dangerous drivers who make certain mistakes and happen to be unlucky enough to get caught won't really make it much safer. People still risk their own lives driving dangerously, after all, so even the death penalty for drink driving won't stop people doing it.

squiggleblaz 7y ago
I don't see why I should be at excess risk of dying because I tripped on my shoelace or badly maintained road while walking to the shops. In particular, a person walking to buy milk shouldn't be at excess risk of death even through their own fault. If you hit your head when you fall and die from it, then that happens. But if you survive the fall, another person going to pick up their children from soccer shouldn't be excused from killing you just because it happened on the road. Using a road shouldn't be Russian roulette.