Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

"
If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"
Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Sunday, October 25, 2015

Why Not Universal Ignition Interlocks?

Requiring ignition interlocks on all motor vehicles might have prevented tragedies such as this:
Authorities on Sunday named three adults who were killed when a woman police say was driving while intoxicated plowed her sedan into a crowd attending the Oklahoma State University's homecoming parade the previous day.
After all, aren't you willing to give up a little bit of your freedom in order for everyone else to feel safer? After all, the legal permission to drive a vehicle on the public roadways is a state-granted privilege, not a civil right. And don't you have the right to travel the public roads without fear of being creamed by a drunken driver?

(A regular reader of this blog knows where I am going with this argument.)

11 comments:

Robert Fowler said...

As of this morning, the toll is now 4 dead. The last a 2 year old.

Deadstick said...

CNN acted pretty disgracefully just now. They titillated all the violence voyeurs with "We're going to show cellphone video! Warning: It's disturbing!"

...and then showed carefully vetted stills from it.

Marc said...

If you want some parity, before insisting on interlocks on vehicles, how about licenses and insurance for guns? And I know it will be difficult to get interlocks on guns, since nobody operates a weapon while intoxicated...

Comrade Misfit said...

There is no right to own a car and no permit is required to own one. No insurance is required, either, if you're willing to keep it solely on private land.

There is a right to own a gun. Which hasn't stopped a few states from requiring permits to own one, even if they're kept at home.

dinthebeast said...

Sure, why not. Cars have changed radically in the last few decades, and will continue to do so. Also, if you buy a car and don't register it, at least here in Oakland, they will take it from you with a quickness, private land or not, and you have to have your paperwork straight with the DMV to register a vehicle in your name.
Yet people are driving cars all over the place as if it wasn't a big deal.

-Doug in Oakland

Comrade Misfit said...

Doug, nobody is proposing banning cars. Your fine Senator has said that if she had her druthers, she'd ban guns.

Yogi said...

Right, she is. But that's not the general conversation, nor where you started this thread. So maybe consider that.

Also, maybe think that many people who are on the side of gun ownership are increasingly worried about recent events, and the distinct lack of public condemnation from the gunnies. That would include me, a gun owner and user. Until and unless the hardcore gunnies start to help figure out a reasonable way to help protect the general public, I think a major restriction is inevitable. If you won't come to the table, I think you (generic you, not you personally) will be unhappy with the results. Probably within 10 years, maybe sooner.

Comrade Misfit said...

"Lack of public condemnation"?? You want me to say "bad, bad murdering psycho"? That makes you feel better, Yogi?

I'm sorry, but the tone from the other side seems to be: "Please come to the table to discuss how we may limit your rights and liberties." To that, I say "No, thanks."

Now, if the other side is willing to give some ground, then we can have a conversation.

But if all it's going to be is what my side gives up, then thanks, but no thanks.

CenterPuke88 said...

Comrade, the better response would then be to ask that question, "what are you willing to offer us to make us consider discussing what you desire, what areas can we perhaps agree upon." By just stating you ain't talking, there is no counter-proposal...like the one you made a couple of weeks ago. The reality is the fanatics on both sides will never be happy unless they get enough everything, while the moderates on both sides get bulldozed, IMHO.

Comrade Misfit said...

OK, this is what I want:

1. Silencers removed from Title III and treated as gun accessories, as they were prior to 1934.

2. Nationwide CCW reciprocity for age 21 and over-- in short, a carry permit is like a driver's license.

3. The ban on registering full-auto weapons made after 1986 goes away, OR, civilian police treated like civilians- no exemptions on firearms laws, Federal or state, for law enforcement. If civilians can't have weapons with features, neither can civilian police. If a certain type of weapon is regarded as "military only", then the cops don't get them.

Yogi said...

Sorry, Cm, I meant the large organizations, not you personally. The lack of response of ANY type from the NRA and such is deafening.

For teh record, I support all the changes you propose.