- Messages
- 1,086
- Reactions
- 710
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Chicago: PROOF THAT GUN CONTROL WORKS!
- Thread Starter speeddemon94
- Start date
- Messages
- 474
- Reactions
- 160
Chicago should ban 2x4 pieces of wood after that teen got beat to death by one 3 or 4 years ago.
- Messages
- 1,086
- Reactions
- 710
- Thread Starter
- #3
Chicago should ban people...
- Messages
- 457
- Reactions
- 187
We should just cage off Chicago and make it our national penitentiary/ waste disposal site.
- Messages
- 1,352
- Reactions
- 775
You mean it isn't already?
- Messages
- 13
- Reactions
- 3
I can see a new movie coming from this "Escape from Chicago"
Escape from New York (1981) - IMDb
Escape from L.A. (1996) - IMDb
Escape from New York (1981) - IMDb
Escape from L.A. (1996) - IMDb
- Messages
- 6,985
- Reactions
- 21,487
Never understood how new laws can violate constituional righst to the level they do !
- Messages
- 1,837
- Reactions
- 4,348
If the liberals have there way this is how all of America will be Isn't Utopia Great
- Messages
- 474
- Reactions
- 160
Actually if Liberals had their way, I see a lot of good things coming out of Scandinavian countries, and they are listed as the happiest countries on the planet, a long with some ideas for good governance, superior healthcare, better mass transit, much higher minimum wage than here in the states and a comparable standard of living.
I personally, highly distrust police in this country, and since Ive always been a low income individual, I never found their fines to be "fair". For example lets say speeding is a $200 fine here in the states. To Joe the Policeman, who makes $40,000 a year, that seems like a fair punishment for the crime. To me who has often made $5,000 or less a year, he just wiped out 4% of my yearly income over a petty traffic ticket, plus I need all 100% of my yearly income because I am in the low income category. Hence, as a result of me finding their penalties to be unjust and unfair, I really dislike police and the penalties associated with them.
In Scandinavian countries, they first take into account how much you make prior to assessing any fines. This is a much better system, doesn't let rich people off the hook and is by every definition a much fairer way of carrying out justice. I think they have a lower level of police corruption too than here in the States.
I personally, highly distrust police in this country, and since Ive always been a low income individual, I never found their fines to be "fair". For example lets say speeding is a $200 fine here in the states. To Joe the Policeman, who makes $40,000 a year, that seems like a fair punishment for the crime. To me who has often made $5,000 or less a year, he just wiped out 4% of my yearly income over a petty traffic ticket, plus I need all 100% of my yearly income because I am in the low income category. Hence, as a result of me finding their penalties to be unjust and unfair, I really dislike police and the penalties associated with them.
In Scandinavian countries, they first take into account how much you make prior to assessing any fines. This is a much better system, doesn't let rich people off the hook and is by every definition a much fairer way of carrying out justice. I think they have a lower level of police corruption too than here in the States.
- Messages
- 1,948
- Reactions
- 3,072
You mean in Scandinavian countries where, if you want your drivers license before you are 20 something it costs you about $10k? - and many pay it so the kids can drive them to, or more importantly from, parties and gatherings where alcohol is served. In Sweden the first DUI costs you your license for 10 years iirc, and if you do get your license back your license plates are blaze orange for the rest of your life and if caught a second time, or if caught driving a car without the blaze orange plates you permanently loose your drivers license and spend some time in prison. I'm not advocating for drunk driving here - just pointing out that just like here, more money can buy you a better lawyer and better odds of getting off from traffic or other violations.
As it has been said many times before - If you don't like paying the fine or doing the time, don't do the crime.
As it has been said many times before - If you don't like paying the fine or doing the time, don't do the crime.
- Messages
- 474
- Reactions
- 160
No, I wasn't defending that specifically, actually we're on the same page that that is an overreach of government, particularly considering that Sweden has a DWI limit of .02. I personally think MADD is a neo-Prohibitionist group. I realize that in 1980 or so, there was a legitimate problem with drinking and driving and the excuse of "I was drunk at the time" wasn't a proper one or a good one. However the pendulum has swung far to the opposite side of what it once was in 1980, now we mandate overly harsh penalties for even the slightest traces of alcohol in our system on a series of offenses.
Yea, you got me on that one Swedish K, you know I'm not suppose to drink alcohol when I take my firearm out to the middle of the Arizona desert, but I sure as hell ain't blasting soda can's and nothing feels freer than when Im out in the middle of bum**** nowhere with my dad, with a 6-pack of beer, our guns and blasting our own beer cans, but according to neo-prohibitionist groups like MADD, we are to be considered potentially dangerous criminals, when in fact we are putting no one at risk, we aren't getting bubblegum-faced drunk prior to playing with our firearms, and drinking beer with your dad and plinking your own beer cans, who are we hurting? Thats as American as apple pie!
Dad grew up in a time where you went to jail for what you did, not what you could of done. These days we got a nanny state, before we know it, cops will be writing $200 tickets just for swearing in public. I have always found organizations like MADD and the Christian Right to advocate an "In your face" government. Technically Pedophiles, Rapists and Murderers have more constitutional rights than a drunk driver during a pull over.
Yea, you got me on that one Swedish K, you know I'm not suppose to drink alcohol when I take my firearm out to the middle of the Arizona desert, but I sure as hell ain't blasting soda can's and nothing feels freer than when Im out in the middle of bum**** nowhere with my dad, with a 6-pack of beer, our guns and blasting our own beer cans, but according to neo-prohibitionist groups like MADD, we are to be considered potentially dangerous criminals, when in fact we are putting no one at risk, we aren't getting bubblegum-faced drunk prior to playing with our firearms, and drinking beer with your dad and plinking your own beer cans, who are we hurting? Thats as American as apple pie!
Dad grew up in a time where you went to jail for what you did, not what you could of done. These days we got a nanny state, before we know it, cops will be writing $200 tickets just for swearing in public. I have always found organizations like MADD and the Christian Right to advocate an "In your face" government. Technically Pedophiles, Rapists and Murderers have more constitutional rights than a drunk driver during a pull over.
- Messages
- 1,527
- Reactions
- 1,774
I don't really consider a drunk driver any different than a safety violator at a range. You made the decision of your own free will to endanger the lives of other people on the road out of stupidity or ego. I'd be totally in favor of accepting Scandinavia's punishments on drunk driving. Maybe then people would learn. Roughly 1.25 million people were arrested for drunk driving in 2011. Lets go back 5 years, to 2006, 1.4 million people, and 5 again to 2001, 1.4 million. Yeah, our system has managed to deter nearly 150 thousand. Man, we must be doing good job with the current slap on the wrist system that you consider "overly harsh." Easy way to not pay traffic tickets: OBEY THE TRAFFIC LAWS.
However, I will acknowledge that if you want to get drunk and go out by yourself and play with your firearms, more power to you. Darwin can sort you out. Just be prepared for the consequences when you accidently shoot someone.
There is a rule on this forum about keeping political topics gun related. So, despite your obvious problems with alcohol and the penalties for driving while intoxicated, lets keep the thread about the failing of Chicago's extreme anti-gun laws. Chicago and New York are just like California. Democrats run those exactly how they want to run the entire country and all three have incredible debt, huge crime, and horrible education.
However, I will acknowledge that if you want to get drunk and go out by yourself and play with your firearms, more power to you. Darwin can sort you out. Just be prepared for the consequences when you accidently shoot someone.
There is a rule on this forum about keeping political topics gun related. So, despite your obvious problems with alcohol and the penalties for driving while intoxicated, lets keep the thread about the failing of Chicago's extreme anti-gun laws. Chicago and New York are just like California. Democrats run those exactly how they want to run the entire country and all three have incredible debt, huge crime, and horrible education.
- Messages
- 474
- Reactions
- 160
Well I didn't bring up the topic, but yes, the pendulum has swung far in the opposite direction of what it was in 1980.
Based on your comment I assume you would be a-ok with you losing a loved one to a texting driver who didn't have his/her eyes on the road and only received 45 days in prison as opposed to a drunk driver?
This actually happened in Ohio, a woman who was texting and driving killed a man who was on a jog, and received 45 days in prison. Due to our special classifications of bad drivers, we mandate next to no punishment for negligent sober driving, and come down hard for drunk driving even if the initial stop is over some minor traffic infraction. You seem to consider drunk drivers worse than other types of bad driving on the road. I think it really boils down to, society wants to make people who enjoy alcohol into criminals, more than bad drivers who don't require alcohol to make piss-poor decisions before getting behind the wheel of a car (like not sleeping in 36 hours) or making reckless decisions at the spur of the moment, like street racing that camaro is next to you in 5 o'clock traffic.
I look down on ALL bad driving equally and do not favor classifications of one type of bad driving that requires harsher punishments over other forms of bad driving. No sense in making one category of bad driving, worse than another, if they both have the same result which is loss of human life, but as it sit's, thats the only type of bad driving that gets punished on a consistent basis that is accceptable to society.
This is how our traffic laws work, you can drive however the hell you want as long as you're sober. You can street race, you can drive after not sleeping for 36 hours, actually even prescription drug DUI's are a slap on the wrist compared to alcohol. You can take some tranqulizer prescription drug medication and decide to get behind the wheel of that car and still only face a slap on the wrist when compared to a DWI because society has this preconceived notion that only alcohol is required to make for bad driving that results in loss of life. I would make reckless driving require an arrest above just finding trace amounts of alcohol in your system.
I actually do bring up the topic frequently as Im thinking of going for a Masters degree in Criminal Justice in which I will make my masters thesis about how the .08 BAC for DWI has not saved any lives on the road and actually may have caused more alcohol related fatalities. They are bad laws, written by ideologues in an attempt to legislate morality onto people, or laws written by non-drinkers, to persecute and punish drinkers. It's to make life hard on those that are not tee-totaling women of the WCTU. Prohibition has a long and bloody history in this country, and when the neo-prohibitionists found out that alcohol makes for worse driving, they latched onto that and got the pendulum to swing in the exact polar opposite of what it had been.
edit: That sounds easy, Obey the traffic laws. You're a real choir boy aren't you? You can look this up on a lot of police statistics, but they pull over, and likely ticket people on any number of factors not actually related to safe driving, such as skin color, the type of car they are driving. I actually did an experiment. I had MR2 Turbo's for 5 years. I garnered about 25 tickets in those 5 years, some were for bad driving, some I felt the officer had profiled me as a bad driver. I've actually been told by a judge that it doesn't matter what the circumstances are, I'm at fault regardless of anything I bring forward because I'm young and drive a modified sports car, no matter how much I demonstrated negligence by the other party.
So here was my experiment, I traded the MR2 Turbo for a stock 1995 Mazda Miata, same color, similar vintage, similar country of origin, completely stock with stock rims and everything. All of a sudden I quit getting pulled over. I quit getting tickets for 5mph over or not coming to a complete stop. Now driver was actually the same, so why would my tickets go from 5 a year to 0 and next to no pullovers, other than the cops profiled the car and wrote tickets based on the car I was driving as opposed to actually enforcing traffic safety?
Based on your argument a Ferrari should get no more tickets than a Dodge Caravan if they are driven the exact same way and by the exact same driver, but thats not how the real world works. Cops notice certain cars more than other cars because they stick out in traffic and it can have nothing to do with the actual driving done by the driver. Cop pulls that car over, and likely tickets the person because otherwise they consider a waste of time, and it has little to do with actual traffic safety laws.
I've actually been pulled over and no reason at all was given for why I was pulled over. I didn't get a ticket, but still. However I was in a modified MR2 Turbo at the time, which was prone to getting pulled over for any number of BS excuses the police officer could come up with.
Based on your comment I assume you would be a-ok with you losing a loved one to a texting driver who didn't have his/her eyes on the road and only received 45 days in prison as opposed to a drunk driver?
This actually happened in Ohio, a woman who was texting and driving killed a man who was on a jog, and received 45 days in prison. Due to our special classifications of bad drivers, we mandate next to no punishment for negligent sober driving, and come down hard for drunk driving even if the initial stop is over some minor traffic infraction. You seem to consider drunk drivers worse than other types of bad driving on the road. I think it really boils down to, society wants to make people who enjoy alcohol into criminals, more than bad drivers who don't require alcohol to make piss-poor decisions before getting behind the wheel of a car (like not sleeping in 36 hours) or making reckless decisions at the spur of the moment, like street racing that camaro is next to you in 5 o'clock traffic.
I look down on ALL bad driving equally and do not favor classifications of one type of bad driving that requires harsher punishments over other forms of bad driving. No sense in making one category of bad driving, worse than another, if they both have the same result which is loss of human life, but as it sit's, thats the only type of bad driving that gets punished on a consistent basis that is accceptable to society.
This is how our traffic laws work, you can drive however the hell you want as long as you're sober. You can street race, you can drive after not sleeping for 36 hours, actually even prescription drug DUI's are a slap on the wrist compared to alcohol. You can take some tranqulizer prescription drug medication and decide to get behind the wheel of that car and still only face a slap on the wrist when compared to a DWI because society has this preconceived notion that only alcohol is required to make for bad driving that results in loss of life. I would make reckless driving require an arrest above just finding trace amounts of alcohol in your system.
I actually do bring up the topic frequently as Im thinking of going for a Masters degree in Criminal Justice in which I will make my masters thesis about how the .08 BAC for DWI has not saved any lives on the road and actually may have caused more alcohol related fatalities. They are bad laws, written by ideologues in an attempt to legislate morality onto people, or laws written by non-drinkers, to persecute and punish drinkers. It's to make life hard on those that are not tee-totaling women of the WCTU. Prohibition has a long and bloody history in this country, and when the neo-prohibitionists found out that alcohol makes for worse driving, they latched onto that and got the pendulum to swing in the exact polar opposite of what it had been.
edit: That sounds easy, Obey the traffic laws. You're a real choir boy aren't you? You can look this up on a lot of police statistics, but they pull over, and likely ticket people on any number of factors not actually related to safe driving, such as skin color, the type of car they are driving. I actually did an experiment. I had MR2 Turbo's for 5 years. I garnered about 25 tickets in those 5 years, some were for bad driving, some I felt the officer had profiled me as a bad driver. I've actually been told by a judge that it doesn't matter what the circumstances are, I'm at fault regardless of anything I bring forward because I'm young and drive a modified sports car, no matter how much I demonstrated negligence by the other party.
So here was my experiment, I traded the MR2 Turbo for a stock 1995 Mazda Miata, same color, similar vintage, similar country of origin, completely stock with stock rims and everything. All of a sudden I quit getting pulled over. I quit getting tickets for 5mph over or not coming to a complete stop. Now driver was actually the same, so why would my tickets go from 5 a year to 0 and next to no pullovers, other than the cops profiled the car and wrote tickets based on the car I was driving as opposed to actually enforcing traffic safety?
Based on your argument a Ferrari should get no more tickets than a Dodge Caravan if they are driven the exact same way and by the exact same driver, but thats not how the real world works. Cops notice certain cars more than other cars because they stick out in traffic and it can have nothing to do with the actual driving done by the driver. Cop pulls that car over, and likely tickets the person because otherwise they consider a waste of time, and it has little to do with actual traffic safety laws.
I've actually been pulled over and no reason at all was given for why I was pulled over. I didn't get a ticket, but still. However I was in a modified MR2 Turbo at the time, which was prone to getting pulled over for any number of BS excuses the police officer could come up with.
- Messages
- 1,527
- Reactions
- 1,774
That whole post was ignorant. Drunk Driving laws are tougher because statistically drunk drivers kill people. Not sure if you are aware, but states are cracking down on cell phone use while driving. In Washington State it can be up to around $500 for the first offense. The second offense they can suspend your license. A city in New Jersey made it illegal to WALK AND TEXT on your cell phone. At no time did I say I was OK with other bad driving. I simply said there should be no reason to lessen the punishments for drunk drivers.
If your last paragraph was some attempt at credibility it failed miserably. Perhaps rather than criminal justice you should attempt a political science degree. You seem to be in favor or drunk driving AND you spout ignorant bullbubblegum that doesn't really address drunk driving. If you want to increase punishments for NON Alcohol related crimes then go ahead. How much sense does it make to decrease the punishment because other crimes with the same results have a decreased punishment? Perhaps we should let murders go with a warning if it's only their first offense?
If your last paragraph was some attempt at credibility it failed miserably. Perhaps rather than criminal justice you should attempt a political science degree. You seem to be in favor or drunk driving AND you spout ignorant bullbubblegum that doesn't really address drunk driving. If you want to increase punishments for NON Alcohol related crimes then go ahead. How much sense does it make to decrease the punishment because other crimes with the same results have a decreased punishment? Perhaps we should let murders go with a warning if it's only their first offense?
- Messages
- 474
- Reactions
- 160
I think we should take this to PM's because this topic has gone far off from what the OP wanted.
- Messages
- 243
- Reactions
- 114
ha. i like the above idea.. Just dump the human trash there. And they wounder why they were passed over for the Olympics.........
- Messages
- 457
- Reactions
- 187
I was thinking of those movies while I typed that lol. Where is Snake Pliskin when you need him.
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
Trade EXPS 3-0 FDE NV for a Comp M something- Started by .45's and .38's
- Replies: 1
-
H&K USP Accessories - 9mm & .40 S&W - gently used.
- Started by sinclear
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
Remington 760 Gamemaster 30-06 w/ Bushnell Scope
- Started by Blackhammer
- Replies: 0
-
AR-15, AR-10, and AKM parts and accessories SALE! MANY PHOTOS!- Started by SpaghettiToss
- Replies: 1