War on drunk driving a model for reducing gun violence
What practical steps, within the protections of the Second Amendment, can we take to reduce mass killings and gun violence? Can such an effort even begin to make a difference in saving lives and preventing heartbreak?
Yes, it can. And we have a model of success to draw upon.
By 1982, more than 21,000 Americans were dying each year in alcohol-related accidents. Yet somehow by 2010, the number of fatalities caused by drunk driving had fallen to 10,228, a decline of more than half. We didn’t solve the problem, but clearly we have made substantial progress. We are saving more than 10,000 lives a year and preventing tens of thousands more from being crippled or maimed. Almost as important, over the years we have prevented tens of thousands of drivers from ruining their own lives by killing people while under the influence.
We did not achieve that progress by banning automobiles. We did not ban alcohol. In fact, no single dramatic change produced the turnaround. It was achieved through a broad, concerted legal effort backed by a fundamental change in what was deemed culturally acceptable
We required automakers to make their products safer, including then-controversial steps such as requiring airbags. We mandated use of seatbelts. We increased the legal liability of bars, taverns and restaurants that over-served customers, to ensure that those making money off the problem had some “skin in the game” in reducing it.
We instituted a national drinking age of 21, which reduced the number of minors involved in alcohol-related fatalities. In Georgia alone, the rate of such alcohol-related fatalities involving drivers under 21 fell by 63.7 percent from 2000 to 2010 We increased enforcement efforts, such as DUI roadblocks. We tightened licensing requirements and also nationalized databases, so that someone stripped of his or her license in one state for drunk driving could not be licensed in another state.
So how do you apply those lessons to gun safety? As with automobiles, you improve the safety of the devices themselves, for example by requiring the installation of trigger locks. (If Nancy Lanza had installed trigger locks in guns kept in a household with an unbalanced young man, she and 26 other people today in Newtown might still be alive.) You ban the sale, use or possession of high-capacity magazines, such as the 30-round mags that Adam Lanza used. And you ban altogether the sale or transfer of assault weapons. If someone wants to sell an existing assault weapon, they can sell only to the government.
As with automobiles, you require evidence that individuals know how to operate certain weapons before they can be licensed to use or possess them. The National Rifle Association points out, correctly, that those who go through gun-safety and marksmanship courses to qualify for concealed-carry permits in many states are rarely involved in crime. Why not extend that successful model to gun ownership in general? (Georgia, by the way, requires no gun-safety training and no evidence of gun-handling ability before granting permits to carry concealed weapons.)
In addition to licensing gun owners, you register weapons. (With some 200 million guns in private hands, the fear of a government effort to go door to door confiscating registered weapons is ludicrous paranoia.) If a registered weapon is used in a crime but was not reported stolen, the person to whom it is registered can be held civilly or even criminally liable. That’s responsible gun ownership, and would curtail the black market substantially.
One of the bigger deterrents to drunk driving is the significantly increased cost of auto insurance for those convicted. Bars and liquor stores with a history of over-serving also have to worry about increased insurance costs. If you make gun owners and sellers financially liable for any damage done with their weapons, you create a market-based incentive to be responsible.
None of those steps violates the Constitution; none prevents honest citizens from obtaining firearms for personal defense, hunting and other legitimate purposes. But together, they have the potential to dramatically reduce the number of deaths caused by firearm misuse.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
693 comments Add your comment
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
11:45 am
“Scout, you don’t have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about.”
You KNOW I hit a nerve when Jay decides to reply to me.
Well then, we will let the courts decide won’t we !
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
11:45 am
“Bookmarked for future use.”- Joe Mama
I see that the liberal irony train picked up another passenger.
Jay
December 19th, 2012
11:45 am
“Nah, I like screwing with the kook libs on your blog.
Yes, I know. Let’s be honest: You come on here, time and again, for the sole purpose of provoking just the sort of exchange that we’ve seen, and once you’ve succeeded you whine “he did it first!!!”
Paul
December 19th, 2012
11:46 am
It’s a good model with good results, applicable to the current loss of life. The only thing that’s missing from the model is the influence and dollars collected by special-interest groups ( and a touch of paranoia within the membership), so we’ll see more push-back. But in the end I trust people will have had enough and will expect if adults want to own firearms, then they’ll act like adults and show some responsibility.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
11:46 am
“LSD was legal in this country for 30 years. Did they have to pass a constitutional amendment to make it ILLEGAL?
It’s a profoundly silly argument.”
And “Prohibition” ??
Buzz Belle
December 19th, 2012
11:46 am
Reagan was shot, as was Brady, surrounded by people with guns, trained shooters, looking for people trying to kill him. This proves no matter how many guns you have, instances like what we have just expreienced will happen again, until we force some changes. If the gun owners want guns, let them pay the price, if the gun manufacturers want a profit, let them pay for the right to produce arms that are only made to kill as quickly as possible. You want to hunt, by a single shot rifle, eat your prey. You want to shoot a pistol, pay a preium for the bullets and then be forced to pay insurance for the damage it causes if you don’t keep it locked up so “mentally ill” people can get it. I am not advocating you have to give up all your arms, the 2nd amendment gives you the right to have a weapon, not any weapon made. You want that right – pay up.
Fred ™
December 19th, 2012
11:47 am
curious
December 19th, 2012
11:35 am
Jay,
how about a vote on whether or not Ben should be banned?
++++++++++++++++
How about not?
Joe Hussein Mama
December 19th, 2012
11:48 am
Doom — “I see that the liberal irony train picked up another passenger.”
Son, as often as you shriek about something being a
L
I
E
!
without the least shred of evidence or even a link, you’re the LAST person who should be calling others out on it.
Tend to the 4×4 beam in your own eye before you bleat and whine about the motes in the eyes of others.
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
11:48 am
Lonely liberals hooking up on a blog. Eeeewwwww.
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
11:50 am
Not only is Joe Mama on the irony train but he has a 1st class seat.
Regnad Kcin
December 19th, 2012
11:50 am
Well, I think durn near ever’ law ever passed makes somethin’ illegal that was legal before…
Fred ™
December 19th, 2012
11:52 am
john
December 19th, 2012
11:39 am
so according to bookman they guy that prevented the massacre in san antonio was playing john wayne. thank GOD he was there with a gun instead of unarmed like bookman would prefer.
+++++++++++++++
And little john STILL hasn’t provided a link to what the hell he’s whining about…….
Regnad Kcin
December 19th, 2012
11:52 am
“Hillary Clinton, the lead Presidential Democratic Party candidate, wants to ban all guns in America”
Interesting. Linkee?
Funny story, BTW.
Nunna Yobinnes
December 19th, 2012
11:53 am
“Chris Rock thinks bullets should cost Five Dollars each. That would solve it, he says”
“I believe he said $5,000″
Oh, so the bad guys will be stealing their ammo. (They probably already are, so no big change there.) Only the law abiding would pay the high price for ammo.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 19th, 2012
11:53 am
Doom — “Not only is Joe Mama on the irony train but he has a 1st class seat.”
But of course. You proles go in the back, Doom.
Fred ™
December 19th, 2012
11:54 am
I find it awesome that no matter how much of a pain in the butt some of us find Ben to be, not a single one supports a “vote” for banning him.
Hurray for us.
curious
December 19th, 2012
11:56 am
preliminary results say Ben stays.
Nunna Yobinnes
December 19th, 2012
11:56 am
New idea for Dire Straits/Sting song: “I want my…I want my F-15…”
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2012
11:56 am
“Hurray for us”
Ironic, don’t you think…that he’s the “victim” of “liberal” tolerance?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
11:57 am
The last time Congress passed an “assault weapons ban” they did not include the provision banning the sale of those weapons already in private possession.
I’m not sure there will be enough votes to pass a new ban but if so I doubt there will be enough to include an all encompassing ban on sales.
Time will tell.
In the meantime:
I support any acts/legislation that will:
1) Actually “PREVENT” a future Newtown type tragedy.
2) Pass Constitutional muster.
Welcome to the Occupation
December 19th, 2012
11:57 am
Ben Shockley: “Welcome, did you hear anybody argue in favor of guns based on economic/profit issues? I haven’t. All the arguments I have heard were based on Constitutional principals”
I explained all that above. The Wayne Lapierres of the world are happy to have the support of people like you and your “constitutional” principles. It gives their allies in the gun making industry a convenient cloak of principle for their profiteering. The constitution, you see, is always to some degree merely a cloak for underlying economic interests.
Do you reject the notion, Ben, that people can be exploited by having their beliefs — in things like constitutional principle, for example — appropriated for other ends?
If not, you are very naive indeed and have a deeply stunted view of how cultural and economic interests work.
Paul
December 19th, 2012
11:59 am
Fred
Shunning works, but initially leads to an increase in aberrant behavior.
Banning’s like disowning someone. Using kids as a model, time-out is less severe and can lead to positive results. For a few minutes, anyway -
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
12:00 pm
“liberal” tolerance. Hearing that oxymoron reminds me of college speech codes. More of that “liberal tolerance”.
Paul
December 19th, 2012
12:00 pm
0311
“In the meantime:
I support any acts/legislation that will:
1) Actually “PREVENT” a future Newtown type tragedy.
2) Pass Constitutional muster.”
Do you think Jay’s proposals meet those criteria?
curious
December 19th, 2012
12:01 pm
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
The best we can hope for is to
1- Pass Constitutional muster
2- Minimize the chances of the tragedy being repeated.
A Congressional committee might be a good place to start.
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
12:02 pm
I see I’ve had 2 posts with no curse words and no direct insults and no name calling of anyone that have been moderated after the fact. Love that “liberal tolerance”.
Regnad Kcin
December 19th, 2012
12:02 pm
“Ironic, don’t you think…that he’s the “victim” of “liberal” tolerance?”
Does that put him on the…Irony Train?
Regnad Kcin
December 19th, 2012
12:04 pm
“I see I’ve had 2 posts with no curse words and no direct insults and no name calling of anyone that have been moderated after the fact. Love that “liberal tolerance”.’
Maybe somebody’s being “profiled” – I can understand why you’d be against that.
JohnnyReb
December 19th, 2012
12:04 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
December 19th, 2012
9:48 am
J. Reb — “The only thing preventing a person’s success in America is the will and fortitude of the individual.”
Well said.
With that in mind, I look forward to the iminent cessation of your whiny and interminable posts about why Romney and the GOP lost in November.
____________________________________
Mama – you are entitled to your opinion. I just drop in every now and then to tell you have stupid it is.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 19th, 2012
12:05 pm
Moderated, me?
Why, I nev-ah!
I suppose that was under the “hectoring” rule. If so then guilty as charged.
On topic, I read this in the paper edition this morning and agree with most everything, but as was discussed at length this past weekend, any kind of ban of existing hardware such as high capacity magazines does infringe on law abiding citizens who don’t have to justify their enthusiasms the same as golfers don’t have to justify their enthusiasm for what to me seems like a silly pastime. Yes, I know, golf clubs don’t kill, but that’s not the point. Mrs. Lanza knew her son was mentally ill, and it was her responsibility to secure those weapons in a gun safe with her as the only person with the combination.
I’ve read at least one suggestion about those who shoot at the range being required to maintain a locker where my gun is kept. That’s all well and good if I only went to one range, which I don’t.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
12:05 pm
Thulsa:
LOL !
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
12:06 pm
Paul:
No. Just my opinion.
TaxPayer
December 19th, 2012
12:06 pm
I see the cons are becoming even more emotionally distraught at the prospect of accepting personal responsibility for the freeeeeedom to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. I’m not surprised. After all, it’s not their grade school children being buried.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 19th, 2012
12:07 pm
Ironic, don’t you think…that he’s the “victim” of “liberal” tolerance?
Heh, heh, heh.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2012
12:07 pm
Let’s be honest: You come on here, time and again, for the sole purpose of provoking just the sort of exchange that we’ve seen
Seems to be the main purpose of a number of our con posters. Their inability to discuss intelligently beyond a post or two seems to belie their condition.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
12:08 pm
………….. and the left always praises the upholding of even the slightest technical violation of someone’s 4th, 5th and/or 6th Amendment rights even when the vicious animal is released into
the population to rape and murder again.
Oh, the hypocrisy !!!
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
12:09 pm
“Seems to be the main purpose of a number of our con posters. Their inability to discuss intelligently beyond a post or two seems to belie their condition.”
The liberal irony train is filling up fast. A lot of 1st class seats taken already.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
12:09 pm
P.S.
The 2nd Amendment is no less sacred.
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
12:11 pm
Regnad,
I’m cool with profiling. If most shootings are done by one particular group then profile them. Nuthin wrong with that.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
12:11 pm
If in the future, Congress felt that selling your home (that you now legally own) was not in the best interest of the public or the economy ………. could they ban you from doing so ???
Regnad Kcin
December 19th, 2012
12:11 pm
“Mrs. Lanza knew her son was mentally ill”
Kamchak, I wonder if you can enlighten me on this point. I’ve heard words like “psychotic” tossed around, but the only official source I’ve seem mentions “Asperger’s” syndrome, which, I believe, is rarely associated with violent acts.
I would appreciate a link to some reliable source that suggests he was diagnosed as potientally dangerous. Otherwise, we are unfairly stigmatizing thousands of harmless Asperger’s sufferers, and we can anticipate future calls to “round ‘em up and put ‘em away.”
Okay, I may be over-reacting, but can someone help clarify this point? Jay?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
12:12 pm
Thulsa:
Amen !
Paul
December 19th, 2012
12:12 pm
0311
I don’t see where requiring trigger locks or not allowing sale of high-capacity magazines violates the constitution. I think it also reasonable to expect both of those would, if not prevent a future mass killing, then degrade the rate of loss of life.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 19th, 2012
12:14 pm
J. Reb — “Mama – you are entitled to your opinion. I just drop in every now and then to tell you have stupid it is.”
Aww, I think it’s CUTE that you think your blather makes a hill of beans’ difference to anyone in here.
Nunna Yobinnes
December 19th, 2012
12:14 pm
‘Scuse me mistah intrudah while i take this trigger lock off my gun.”
Paul
December 19th, 2012
12:15 pm
“If in the future, Congress felt that selling your home (that you now legally own) was not in the best interest of the public or the economy ………. could they ban you from doing so ???”
My guess is even Justice Scalia , if presented with such an equivalence, would searingly dismiss the attorney’s argument.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 19th, 2012
12:15 pm
0311 — “………….. and the left always praises the upholding of even the slightest technical violation of someone’s 4th, 5th and/or 6th Amendment rights even when the vicious animal is released into
the population to rape and murder again. Oh, the hypocrisy !!!”
Pics or it didn’t happen.
Redcoat
December 19th, 2012
12:15 pm
The double standard in full display………Jay(Dem/Lib) is in charge of labeling and defining……
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 19th, 2012
12:16 pm
Regnad
I’m not going by what was diagnosed. It is my understanding now that he went berserk because his mother had expressed her intention to institutionalize him. Clearly she understood that something was wrong with him, which is all that is really necessary for a gun owner to act responsibly.
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
12:17 pm
Scout,
One more moderated post and I can claim a hat trick on the Bookman blog. I thought I had to insult someone, curse, or call someone a name to get a post moderated after the fact. Not so. Orwellian.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
12:17 pm
……………..or you own a legal vehicle that the government later decides is not energy efficient. They let you keep it but make it illegal for you to sell it ?
Would that pass Constitutional muster?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
12:18 pm
Thulsa:
Jay lets libs. on here insult other posters daily.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2012
12:19 pm
and the left always praises the upholding of even the slightest technical violation of someone’s 4th, 5th and/or 6th Amendment rights even when the vicious animal is released into
the population to rape and murder again.
Absolute nonsense. Most attorneys hate the concept of releasing the guilty (if they actually are) because of the mistake or overreach of the officer. But as you clearly have alluded too many times with your wink, wink, nudge, nudge encouragement of the violation of constitutional rights by officers, it seems to be one of the few tools we have to try to keep some from violating rights by going all Dirty Harry or TV cop. But you are diverting to a rabbithole and I ain’t going down there with you because we know you are not capable of honest discussion of these subjects.
Paul
December 19th, 2012
12:19 pm
Redcoat
“Jay(Dem/Lib) is in charge of labeling and defining……”
That’s what happens when you have stuff other people want to use. You get to make the rules on how they use it.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 19th, 2012
12:19 pm
0311 — “Jay lets libs. on here insult other posters daily.”
And the reverse is true over at Kyles.
Shrug. Choose your poison.
Rightwing Troll
December 19th, 2012
12:20 pm
Yes Scout… and if you wish to insult libs, hobble on over to Kyles as he does the same… They’ve been screeching on about how the 20 dead children is the direct fault of the “Libs”…
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 19th, 2012
12:21 pm
And the reverse is true over at Kyles.
But…but…but…that’s different and SHUT UP!
Paul
December 19th, 2012
12:21 pm
0311 12:17
Isnt’ that essentially what happens with vehicles that don’t pass emissions tests? Can’t pass the test, can’t renew registration. Which means it’s illegal to operate.
getalife
December 19th, 2012
12:21 pm
The cons lose every arument so they seort to child like attacks.
It is the best the cons can do so don’t expect them to change.
Benghazi facts are in.
Yes, cons were dead wrong as usual and can’t remember when they got any facts right.
getalife
December 19th, 2012
12:21 pm
resort.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 19th, 2012
12:23 pm
0311 — “Would that pass Constitutional muster?”
Not sure, but in any event, that’s not ex post facto. An ex post facto law in that case would criminalize your *purchase* of the car, even though it was legal to buy *when* you bought it.
Just as an aside, perhaps we could consider the imposition of Prohibition when it comes to making hitherto legal things illegal. Surely lots of businesses and industries had material and stock on-hand that became illegal when Prohibition went ‘live?’ I don’t know how it happened myself, but perhaps another poster could comment knowledgeably on how things like that were handled at the time?
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
12:23 pm
Nunna Yobinnes
December 19th, 2012
12:14 pm
‘Scuse me mistah intrudah while i take this trigger lock off my gun.”
Thass funny! Even if I did suggest trigger locks.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2012
12:23 pm
Senior Digits: Thulsa: Jay lets libs. on here insult other posters daily.
Now that is funny considering who it was directed toward.
Perhaps you want to review the kiddy remarks from last night from that poster and your buddy Recon and tell us all how Jay lets “libs” insult. 
Krystal'sBalls
December 19th, 2012
12:23 pm
Geez, there is FROTHING on both sides of this issue. Actualy quite tiresome at this point, all sapped (or is it “zapped” ot “tapped”?) out on energy. I guess I’ll go back to “sleep”…
DownInAlbany
December 19th, 2012
12:24 pm
getalife
December 19th, 2012
12:21 pm
Benghazi facts are in.
Yes, cons were dead wrong as usual and can’t remember when they got any facts right.
What, exactly, were the cons dead wrong about?
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 19th, 2012
12:25 pm
JHM
I don’t know how it happened myself, but perhaps another poster could comment knowledgeably on how things like that were handled at the time?
——————————————————————
Ask getalife. He was there at the time j/k
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 19th, 2012
12:25 pm
What, exactly, were the cons dead wrong about?
The smoking gun is the mushroom cloud.
Nunna Yobinnes
December 19th, 2012
12:25 pm
Thanks. I thought my MTV (I mean F-15) song was kinda funny too. However others must not agree.
DownInAlbany
December 19th, 2012
12:28 pm
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 19th, 2012
12:25 pm
What, exactly, were the cons dead wrong about?
The smoking gun is the mushroom cloud.
Oh, I thought it might be the fact that the cons called BS on the “it was a spontaneous riot because of THE film.” I haven’t read the report, though I plan to, but, apparently there is no mention of “the film” in the report. Though, at the same time, the State Department is to blame, but, no one in particular??
getalife
December 19th, 2012
12:29 pm
“What, exactly, were the cons dead wrong about?”
Everything like did you know the Libyan guards were on strike for better wages?
And there was no union.
Think about that for a minute.
Paul
December 19th, 2012
12:29 pm
getalife
“Benghazi facts are in.
Yes, cons were dead wrong as usual and can’t remember when they got any facts right.”
I was wondering how conservatives (like the Fox morning crew) would address that, or if they’d just report it and move on and hope no one remembers.
DownInAlbany
You don’t remember the charges about the contractors calling Obama and being told to stand down, or the SEAL team ready to go, or the Spectre gunships just minutes away, or that Obama knew what the dangers were and ignored them?
You probably weren’t on the blog those days, but the stuff repeated here was pretty amazing.
Wait a minute
December 19th, 2012
12:32 pm
And one way to cut down recidivism. Any crime committed with a gun, automtatic death penalty. Someone breaks into your house and you use your gun in self defense, you are fine. Take a shot at someone on the street while you are carjacking them, use a gun to perpetrate a robbery, etc., we make space in prison for another offender by execution.
It’s like marijuana, you want to use it in your own home, that’s fine. Commit a crime under the influence, that’s different.
Redcoat
December 19th, 2012
12:32 pm
Paul…….like the government?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 19th, 2012
12:32 pm
Oh, I thought it might be the fact that the cons called BS on the “it was a spontaneous riot because of THE film.”
Don’t really care what it is that you, “thought.”
You asked for an example and you got one.
Funny how y’all are avoiding that phrase now like so much nuclear waste.
Paul
December 19th, 2012
12:33 pm
“Paul…….like the government?”
Redcoat, we ARE the government.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
12:34 pm
Paul:
“I don’t see where requiring trigger locks or not allowing the sale of high-capacity magazines violates the constitution. I think it also reasonable to expect both of those would, if not prevent a future mass killing, then degrade the rate of loss of life.”
1) TRIGGER LOCKS: Trigger locks should be a personal choice (same as putting those plastic safety things in your electrical outlets or locking poisons in the cabinet if you have children or covering your backyard pool everytime it is not in use). It’s a personal choice that should not be mandated by government or do you want the government mandating all of those other things as well ? I don’t.
A “trigger locked” gun is not immediately usable for the purpose for which the buyer might have obtained it. That again should be a private choice.
(I personally recommend people keep weapons in a locked safe if not intended for immeidate use but again that should be their choice).
2) MAGAZINE CAPACITY: We already prohibit belt fed weapons. The drum magazines out there are so bad to jam that they’re worthless.
That said, we won WWII with an M-1 rifle that fired only eight rounds before it had to be reloaded ……….. MEANING a person who is restricted to magazine capacity will INNOVATE.
That can be done by taping two 10 round mags together (so they can be easily flipped ……… takes about 2 seconds) or they will just bring MORE weapons.
Which is more dangerous ………. a nutcase with just one weapon with a high capacity magazine (say 30 rounds) that might jam or the same person with multiple weapons with lower capacity magazines (10 rounds)?
Just my opinion ……………..
Nunna Yobinnes
December 19th, 2012
12:35 pm
Wait a minute – I got no problem with your proposal.
Everyone – Anyone want to place odds on when the nuke off the Tybee Island coast will go off?
getalife
December 19th, 2012
12:36 pm
Prohibition never worked and never will work.
Criminals cheer probation because they know they are about to get paid.
Boardwalk Empire is a pretty good show to learn about prohibition.
You could replace all the characters with the drug cartels and it would be the same show.
getalife
December 19th, 2012
12:36 pm
prohibition not probation.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
12:38 pm
“And the reverse is true over at Kyles.”
Shouldn’t be allowed by the AJC on either site.
Debate or get shoved off.
Nunna Yobinnes
December 19th, 2012
12:38 pm
getalife – I bet criminals cheer probation too. At least they’re not incarcerated any more.
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
12:40 pm
I like wait a minutes thoughts. Use a gun in the commission of a felony like a carjacking or robbery? Automatic death penalty. That’ll clean up a lot of thuggery. And in a hurry too.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 19th, 2012
12:41 pm
N. Yobinnes — “Everyone – Anyone want to place odds on when the nuke off the Tybee Island coast will go off?”
Never.
An a-bomb (let alone an h-bomb) is a highly finicky thing and very, very difficult to set off just right, even under the best of circumstances. One that’s been lying on the ocean floor for 50+ years is hardly in condition to go off whenever.
More likely, assuming the conventional explosives in it haven’t degraded completely, you could possibly get a relatively small ‘fizzle’ reaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzle_(nuclear_test)
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
12:41 pm
Paul:
“Isnt’ that essentially what happens with vehicles that don’t pass emissions tests? Can’t pass the test, can’t renew registration. Which means it’s illegal to operate.”
I would disagee. That would be like restricting the sale of a weapon unless it functioned properly.
In any case, if you didn’t want to get it fixed so you could operate it you still have the right to sell it for junk (or if it’s an antique to a museum).
getalife
December 19th, 2012
12:41 pm
Noneya,
True but they make you pee in a cup and call it freedom.
Jack ®
December 19th, 2012
12:42 pm
I’m gonna agree with Bookman on this one. However, the black market will florish: we do have an underground economy.
Nunna Yobinnes
December 19th, 2012
12:43 pm
getalife – perhaps that’s because the cup didn’t cost anything to the pee-er (hence “free”)
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 19th, 2012
12:44 pm
Task force announced along with possible proposals.
The task force comes after Friday’s slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where a gunman armed with semiautomatic weapons killed 20 children and six educators. He had killed his mother before the school attack.
White House officials say the eventual package of proposals will likely include some new restrictions on guns, particularly assault rifles, and high-capacity magazines. But they say it will also likely involve measures that touch on mental health initiatives and, perhaps, a discussion on the depiction of violence presented in popular culture.
barking frog
December 19th, 2012
12:45 pm
Commit a misdemeanor…lose your gun rights, just like felonies. Probably
stop a lot of speeding.
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
12:46 pm
“Jay lets libs. on here insult other posters daily.”
Scout,
Yeah but I’m cool with it. What else have they got? If they can’t call you garbage then they’re just left with some gobbledeegook about a smoking gun and a mushroom cloud. Besides its fun to watch them routinely melt down. Hell look at how Ben Shockley gets under their skin. Its hilarious.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2012
12:46 pm
Now the deflection, again, is to “death penalty” is a deterrent.
Nope. Already disproven. Another fail.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 19th, 2012
12:46 pm
Ooh. Just saw that the Tybee Island bomb *is* an H-bomb. And here I was under the impression that it was just a dinky little (so to speak) A-bomb.
getalife
December 19th, 2012
12:46 pm
Noneya,
A free pee test is still not freedom.
Don’t tread on me and all that other tea party crap..
Paul
December 19th, 2012
12:47 pm
0311
People can always circumvent. Or in your parlance, adapt, improvise, overcome. Point is, many people won’t. Just like some people spent loads of time figuring out how not to wear seatbelts. Or use unleaded gasoline. But for the vast majority, it has the intended result.
Which leads to the next question: given your posts, what changes need to be made to reduce the likelihood of future slaughters? Nothing?
Nunna Yobinnes
December 19th, 2012
12:47 pm
JHM – perhaps so. There seemed to be some debate about whether the plutonium sphere was installed in the bomb or not. Could end up being a “dirty bomb” though.
Nunna Yobinnes
December 19th, 2012
12:49 pm
getalife – sorry, I was just playing wit yah. No sinister intent here.
Paul
December 19th, 2012
12:50 pm
0311
But the point is not that cars and guns are the same in that regard. They’re not. Their effects are different. And as Jay’s article is about, when one has results that harm other to the tune of thousands a year, society took action to bring that number down. In the case of drunk drivers, the death toll came way down. So the question remains, what to do about the numbers of victims of gun violence?
Nunna Yobinnes
December 19th, 2012
12:50 pm
JHM, I was watching a TV show about the Tybee bomb the other day. They said this particular bomb had the power of 100 Hiroshima plus Nagasaki bombs.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 19th, 2012
12:51 pm
N. Yobinnes — “JHM – perhaps so. There seemed to be some debate about whether the plutonium sphere was installed in the bomb or not.”
That’s the part I’m reading right now. I suspect they know whether the primary was in the weapon or not — just that they don’t want to give an authoritative answer for intel reasons.
“Could end up being a “dirty bomb” though.”
Kinda puts your misplaced keys or glasses into a whole new category, doesn’t it?
Nunna Yobinnes
December 19th, 2012
12:52 pm
getalife – perhaps you misinterpreted “pee” as “tea”. Someone’s a little grumpy today.