This could be you...

[Just Blue]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nearly-900-drivers-suspended-in-wake-of-deadly-motorcycle-crash-in-new-hampshire/ar-AADUrxi?ocid=spartanntp

 

[bcr229]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nearly-900-drivers-suspended-in-wake-of-deadly-motorcycle-crash-in-new-hampshire/ar-AADUrxi?ocid=spartanntp

An expression about barn doors and horses comes to mind.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

An expression about barn doors and horses comes to mind.

It makes sense when there are still 1000 horses in the barn.

 

[Taxing Matters]

But if it saves the life of just one child it's worth it.
Isn't that the standard rhetoric whenever a new anti firearm law is proposed?

That kind of argument pulls at the heart strings but is not logically sound. If that were truly our standard then everything that was even slightly dangerous would be outlawed.

 

[Ohiogal]

That kind of argument pulls at the heart strings but is not logically sound. If that were truly our standard then everything that was even slightly dangerous would be outlawed.

lawn darts.

 

[not2cleverRed]

lawn darts.

Yeah. Don't try selling those at your yard sale.

That said, not only did I play lawn darts as a kid, but we did it near grandpa's bee hives. No one got so much as a scratch. And that's considering that I've got a sibling that... learns things the hard way. Like, don't throw rocks at your sister, who knows enough to duck (broken window instead). Don't throw things at cars driving by, not even paper airplanes (landed on police officer's lap).

 

[NeilTheCop]

That kind of argument pulls at the heart strings but is not logically sound. If that were truly our standard then everything that was even slightly dangerous would be outlawed.

Logic has little to do with it, if it did you would'nt be able to buy the very dangerous and highly addictive drug tobacco at your local gas station when you fill up your 150mph sports car.

 

[justalayman]

Logic has little to do with it, if it did you would'nt be able to buy the very dangerous and highly addictive drug tobacco at your local gas station when you fill up your 150mph sports car.

Fast cars aren’t dangerous. Idiots with fast cars are the danger.

 

[NeilTheCop]

Fast cars aren’t dangerous. Idiots with fast cars are the danger.

Which takes us back to the whole point of the thread. Can an idiot, AKA multiple DUI offender, be trusted with a car or should he be banned from owning one?

 

[Taxing Matters]

Logic has little to do with it, if it did you would'nt be able to buy the very dangerous and highly addictive drug tobacco at your local gas station when you fill up your 150mph sports car.

Tobacco certainly is addictive. And the long term use of it can be a health hazard to the smoker and to a lesser degree those that inhale significant amounts of second hand smoke. Federal and state laws have tackled the second hand smoke issue by pretty much banning smoking in public places and work places, so for the most part the only ones affected are those who voluntarily choose to smoke or be around the smoker. You don't kill a random stranger in a matter of seconds with a cigarette like you can do with a gun, or even a car. Logically, of course, people should choose not to smoke. So the issue here is different, and the analysis therefore changes. Instead of looking at preventing danger to others, the issue with tobacco is whether the government ought to act in a paternal role to protect the person from himself. In other words, should the smoker have the right to take that risk if he or she wants to do that? In a free society, I say if he/she wants to take that risk of future health problems knowing what they are (and the risks are printed on the packages) he or she should have the right to do that, so long as he/she also pays the higher health insurance premiums to cover the higher health care costs that smokers are likely to incur.

Which takes us back to the whole point of the thread. Can an idiot, AKA multiple DUI offender, be trusted with a car or should he be banned from owning one?

Logically it is not owning the car that poses the risk. The risk is in the person driving the car. After two or three DUI certainly the person ought to banned from driving a car for a significant period of time. That's done by taking away the license. I don't advocate true lifetime prohibition on driving, however, because people do have the capacity to change and if they do they ought to have the opportunity to drive again. Especially when driving is still so central to life in many parts of this country.

 

[justalayman]

Which takes us back to the whole point of the thread. Can an idiot, AKA multiple DUI offender, be trusted with a car or should he be banned from owning one?

What if he is only chauffeured? Should he be barred from owning his own means of transportation?

 

[NeilTheCop]

Tobacco certainly is addictive. And the long term use of it can be a health hazard to the smoker and to a lesser degree those that inhale significant amounts of second hand smoke. Federal and state laws have tackled the second hand smoke issue by pretty much banning smoking in public places and work places, so for the most part the only ones affected are those who voluntarily choose to smoke or be around the smoker. You don't kill a random stranger in a matter of seconds with a cigarette like you can do with a gun, or even a car. Logically, of course, people should choose not to smoke. So the issue here is different, and the analysis therefore changes. Instead of looking at preventing danger to others, the issue with tobacco is whether the government ought to act in a paternal role to protect the person from himself. In other words, should the smoker have the right to take that risk if he or she wants to do that? In a free society, I say if he/she wants to take that risk of future health problems knowing what they are (and the risks are printed on the packages) he or she should have the right to do that, so long as he/she also pays the higher health insurance premiums to cover the higher health care costs that smokers are likely to incur.

So let's take this a little further and ask why tobacco is still legal when it should be a Schedule I or Schedule 2 drug.
Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.
Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous.
In reality it's about the tax dollar attached to their sale, which is so great that the powers that be are willing to turn a blind eye to all the deaths it causes rather than ban it.
As for the smoker knowing and accepting the risk, this is nonsensical, just ask any motorcyclist in a state with a mandatory helmet law if they were ever given the choice to accept the known risk of riding without a helmet.

 

[NeilTheCop]

What if he is only chauffeured? Should he be barred from owning his own means of transportation?

Yes, just like a felon cannot own a firearm, even if the felony has nothing to do with firearms. For example here in New Mexico passing a bad check is a felony.
If a convicted felon who is prohibited from owning and possesing a firearm ignores that law he will most likely go to jail. The firearm will be confiscated and probably destroyed.
If a convicted drunk driver who is prohibited from driving a car ignores the law he will most likely be fined and told not to do it again. The car will be returned.
Therein lies the problem, DUI is not taken seriously.