Richard B the EMT Posted July 29, 2010 Posted July 29, 2010 It is a slippery slope when you start banning one's right to own property, even if they abuse it. Plus, you need a car to work. Take it away and you now put him more dependent on society since he can no longer work..not to mention you put more burden on the offender's family, if he has one. That will not be the offender's family's problem, it is the problem of the repeat offender. (S)he didn't have a gun to their head to make them drive drunk. In Florida, we have systems installed in your car when you get gigged for drunk driving as a repeat offender. You have to do the breathalyzer and pass or your car will not start. Yes, there are ways around it such as drive someone else's car or have someone else blow to get your car started but in reality, neither of those circumstances are common. The habitual drunk driver is usually solo and uses one car, his car. Good system with a flaw. One driver with such device on his car, here in New York State, if memory serves me right, bypassed the device by RENTING a car. He was arrested again for drunk driving, when he had an accident with the rental. Actually, the courts hit him more for driving on a suspended license (suspended for driving under the influence), than for the DUI.
akflightmedic Posted July 30, 2010 Posted July 30, 2010 And if we seek, we shall always find one or two exceptions to the rule...someone will circumvent the restrictions. However, for the majority, it works. People escape from jails/prisons all the time, yet we continue to use them correct? (See, works for the majority)
tniuqs Posted July 30, 2010 Posted July 30, 2010 Although I like the lead injection idea, you may need a big clip - this guy is a farmer, so you would have to shoot the trucks, tractors, combine, quad, ..... Just not a problem, in Canada one is legally limited to 5 shots in a clip, no law about the number of clips ... send me gas money .....
Recommended Posts