What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

29 per day

Re: 29 per day

Don't have a breakdown Mookie, just... try reading what people actually write.

The only point of contention UNO has ever made was that .25 is a lot more dangerous than .09 which is obviously true, is proven by science, and is codified into law. Nowhere did he advocate driving at .09 or say it isn't dangerous.
 
Re: 29 per day

trixR4kids said:
The only point of contention UNO has ever made was that .25 is a lot more dangerous than .09 which is obviously true, is proven by science, and is codified into law. Nowhere did he advocate driving at .09 or say it isn't dangerous.
Click to expand...
Depends on the situation. .25 in my living room without access to a vehicle is not as dangerous as .09 behind the wheel.

Dead is dead... doesn't matter how sober you are.

It's like being a little bit pregnant...
 
Re: 29 per day

MarkEagleUSA said:
Depends on the situation. .25 in my living room without access to a vehicle is not as dangerous as .09 behind the wheel.

Dead is dead... doesn't matter how sober you are.

It's like being a little bit pregnant...
Click to expand...
Ok? No $h!t :D. Not gonna put words in his mouth but I think he only said that one is a far greater level of intoxication than the other which is true. Nobody is saying it's a smart idea to be driving at .09.
 
Re: 29 per day

I believe UNO's point is that in terms of overall risk, a high BAC is more dangerous than a low one, not that low BAC cannot lead to death or that any one death is different from another. Not sure there is a valid argument against that point, and it is highly relevant to policy making.
 
Re: 29 per day

burd said:
I believe UNO's point is that in terms of overall risk, a high BAC is more dangerous than a low one, not that low BAC cannot lead to death or that any one death is different from another. Not sure there is a valid argument against that point, and it is highly relevant to policy making.
Click to expand...
Yeah but you could still die at a low BAC ya know!! :D
 
Re: 29 per day

The Sicatoka said:
If this board (unlike my home board) had the ability for the threadstarter or an admin/moderator to change the thread title it'd already be "241 per day".

If there is a way, please share and I'll update it.
Click to expand...

Still waiting to hear why you immediately discount suicides when it comes to guns but seem very concerned with people drinking themselves to death? I won't hold my breath...
 
Re: 29 per day

Well then why do you keep bringing up the irrelevant point that you could still technically kill someone at .09 or whatever? I don't think anyone disputed that either.
 
Re: 29 per day

One isn't less dangerous than the other in the grand scheme of driving under the influence.

Both are dangerous.

Once "the danger" line is crossed one puts their hope in fate. Good luck.
 
Re: 29 per day

unofan said:
If you want to argue for a legal limit of.00, go for it. But don't tell me a .09 is just as dangerous as a .25.

That's like saying going 30 in a 25 is as dangerous as going 75 in a 25. Because after all, you're still breaking the speed limit in both situations.
Click to expand...
Apparently this needs to be repeated lol.
 
mookie1995 said:
Again
Dead because someone has hindered reflexes at .09 is as dead as someone who is killed by .25
You want to drink, drink.
Don't go looking for an excuse however because you weren't THAT drunk.

So much for the campaign to let one know "buzzed driving is drunk driving" :(
Click to expand...

Dead because someone went 5 over the speed limit is still dead. Therefore let's kill all speeders.
 
Re: 29 per day

unofan said:
Dead because someone went 5 over the speed limit is still dead. Therefore let's kill all speeders.
Click to expand...
I thought he was joking about killing people who commit DUI or whatever but maybe he's actually that dumb and wants to be more like Saudi Arabia (because clearly it works so well there).
 
trixR4kids said:
I thought he was joking about killing people who commit DUI or whatever but maybe he's actually that dumb and wants to be more like Saudi Arabia (because clearly it works so well there).
Click to expand...

SKA kills gayboy butt fvckers. Mookie is ok with them being themselves.
 
Re: 29 per day

jerphisch said:
Still waiting to hear why you immediately discount suicides when it comes to guns but seem very concerned with people drinking themselves to death? I won't hold my breath...
Click to expand...

I conceded 96 per day by gun (includes suicides) to you.

But I then asked in return for the documented 241 per day number which includes self-alcohol'd-to-death numbers.
 
Re: 29 per day

The Sicatoka said:
Does the law treat dead by 5 mph over differently than dead by 50 mph over? Should it?
Click to expand...

Can't speak to every state, but I think in Minnesota the law would likely treat the two differently, and probably should.

Unless you are under the influence, if you kill someone while operating a car you won't be charged with criminal vehicular homicide unless you are operating the car in a grossly negligent fashion. I doubt 5 mph satisfies that, but 50 mph certainly would.


https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.2112
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top