SCOTUS tells Chicago to shove it.

[Solomwi]

If the only point of drunk driving laws were deterrence, you'd have a point.

[Asher]

valiantly trying to get my attention as usual

Your gimmick is getting old.

This is sound logic on it's own, but the thing is that making a law against something will not eliminate it from society. When guns are outlawed, guns do not disappear from society. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. For details, see murder rates in Washington D.C. and Chicago.

Yes, because as any intelligent person knows, keeping handguns out of Chicago/DC (with no border control or import/export regulations) is just as practical as keeping them out on a national level.

Thank you for your stellar contribution to this thread as always, VJ. Your supreme arrogance combined with your blackhole of personality graces yet another thread.

Here's a question for you: How many handguns per capita in Canada? How many in the USA?

Thanks and goodbye.

[RGBVideo]

No no, it's a great point because you can avoid getting hit by a drunk driver by drunk driving yourself, just like you can avoid getting robbed or attacked in your own home by owning a gun yourself.

When concealed gun carrying permits are admitted to people without criminal records, youth in trouble which usually commits robberies/muggings with knives or by forming gangs become more cautious or better yet, even avoid the robbery/crime career choice altogether, looking a little harder for that mcjob to spend their days with. When shotgun and rifle ownerships are allowed, criminal gangs composed of guys with extensive criminal records think twice before trying to rob a house bare with house invasion because the owner could own a gun which (s)he would shoot trespassers with. Legalized gun ownership has this sorts of beneficial effects to all through deterrance.

[Asher]

I love your idea. Let's expand on it -- the US should start distributing nuclear weapons to all countries who have not invaded another country over the past, say, 40 years.

Sound good?

Deterrence. If everyone's armed, everyone's safe!

[rah]

MAD has supposedly kept the world safe for decades.

[Asher]

MAD has supposedly kept the world safe for decades.

We were on the brink of destruction several times. And if the nukes were in the hands of unstable countries, God help you...

[MrFun]

If the only point of drunk driving laws were deterrence, you'd have a point.

I'm not sure what you mean.

[RGBVideo]

I love your idea. Let's expand on it -- the US should start distributing nuclear weapons to all countries who have not invaded another country over the past, say, 40 years.

Sound good?

Deterrence. If everyone's armed, everyone's safe!

Considering every invididual in the world already has access to nuclear weapons they can buy with $500-$2000 from black market, your analogy is brilliant.

Look, I'm sure this "hurr guns dem increase crime / no they decrease crime" -argument has been followed through a gazillion times since the late 60s. the point is, you're late to the party. whenever politicians have been pushing through gun prohibition after slowly increasing crime rates (in US as well as various European states), crime has skyrocketed within a few years. the whole "there are a lot of crimes done with guns, so let's outlaw guns and everything will be fine!" is a very populist position as any layman can realize after sitting down and thinking about it for a while, and has already been proven false through dozens of real life examples during the past 20 years. you seem oblivious to how wrong you are here (and how throughoutly it has been researched through statistical analysis), which makes it all the more amusing.

[Asher]

At least I'm not oblivious to the fact that there is no clear-cut answer.

You're oversimplifying and mis-characterizing my argument.

If you actually read what I wrote, I specifically mentioned "gun violence rates", NOT "crime rates". If you're going to get on your moral high horse, at least have the decency to understand the basic ****ing premise.

Thank you.

[RGBVideo]

why did i bother to write an answer to you?

asher, you and drake could get a flame war going over whether the earth is flat or not. i don't know whether to salute you over your talent or to get angry for you over how much time i wasted on this thread.

[Asher]

Sometimes my awesomeness is a bit overpowering for people. Especially weak-willed, weak-minded Finns.

[N35t0r]

No no, it's a great point because you can avoid getting hit by a drunk driver by drunk driving yourself, just like you can avoid getting robbed or attacked in your own home by owning a gun yourself.

Well, you could argue that, by drunk driving, you do have less chance of being hit by a drunk driver, since you're also swerving around, and swerving around makes you harder to hit

[Darius871]

Go walk the streets of Scarborough where I live and tell me just how different it is from your average American city culturally...the differences in culture are vastly overstated between the two countries.

Uh, how many blacks do you have?

[Darius871]

From your same article:

I didn't know Republicans favor a stronger, interfering federal government.

It's not interfering at all to do what an express constitutional provision has already long required despite being ignored (note I'm talking about the 14th Amendment more than the 2nd). If anything it's the conservative approach of returning to original intent, not the other way around.

[KrazyHorse]

If the only point of drunk driving laws were deterrence, you'd have a point.

No, he wouldn't. The thought that a deterrent is only working if it reduces incidence to zero is retarded.