• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two dead after drunk plows through SXSW crowd

Time to ban cars, or drinking, or crowds, or SXSW. Too dangerous, think of the children. Your rights don't matter.
 
americanwoman said:
Yes! We should require all cars to be registered, insured, and the driver must pass a reasonable test to obtain a license to operate them.

:lol: oh wait...
Click to expand...

Well obviously. But you aren't suggesting they should be able to sit in their car in public, are you?!
 
CRUE CAB said:
Time to ban bar hopping. Too dangerous. Deadly in fact. Think of the children.
Click to expand...

There was no indication he even got drunk at SXSW. He allegedly stole that car in Kileen Tx. He could have got high on the way down to Austin.

How many people die each year at spring break in Fla? 2-3? Gonna ban spring break cuz drunks die or hit someone?
 
1750Texan said:
There was no indication he even got drunk at SXSW. He allegedly stole that car in Kileen Tx. He could have got high on the way down to Austin.

How many people die each year at spring break in Fla? 2-3? Gonna ban spring break cuz drunks die or hit someone?
Click to expand...
Should. Makes traffic a bitch.
 
jmotivator said:
Well obviously. But you aren't suggesting they should be able to sit in their car in public, are you?!
Click to expand...

They must conceal it on their person so they dont scare the public.
 
1750Texan said:
There was no indication he even got drunk at SXSW. He allegedly stole that car in Kileen Tx. He could have got high on the way down to Austin.

How many people die each year at spring break in Fla? 2-3? Gonna ban spring break cuz drunks die or hit someone?
Click to expand...

He was only 'suspected' of drinking. I don't think the toxicology report is completed.

And yes, anywhere you put that many young people who are stoned and drunk together, there will be issues.
 
The world is a dangerous place. Lots of things can kill us and one day one of them will. Until then, I'd rather live free than in a world where the government micromanages every aspect of our lives for our own good. Some twit did something really stupid, careless and criminal. Punish him. Let's not try to change the whole freakin' world in a ridiculous attempt to make sure no other twits can do something stupid that will cause some people to die. No matter how twit-proof you try to make the world, the world will just come back with more effective twits.
 
Sometimes I think no one, esp. conservatives, ever read my signature (the one in blue).
 
Lursa said:
Sometimes I think no one, esp. conservatives, ever read my signature (the one in blue).
Click to expand...

I, for one, have sigs off because most people just put a bunch of stupid spammy crap in theirs.
 
MaggieD said:
There are plenty of laws on the books prohibiting bartenders (bars) from over-serving regardless of whether they're driving. When you hear 2 people dead and 26 injured (at least a half-dozen seriously**), it begs the question: "Who served him the alcohol?" We are more likely to prosecute (at least civilly) a private home's owners than we are bartenders and their employers. There's nothing wrong with insisting on professional responsibility.

**Just think: brain damage; paralysis; whatever. Families and lives destroyed. If a bar, in the name of profit, ignorance or embarrassment served a guy well-past oblivion? I think they should also be held responsible.
Click to expand...
I know there are laws. I just don't think they are as effective as better education would be, because they target the symptom instead of the problem. Laws restricting how much bartenders can serve don't do anything to affect how much a person drinks at home, or in the parking lot, or at their neighbor's barbecue, etc. Brain damage, paralysis, families and lives destroyed, drunk driving - these are all problems that stem from alcohol abuse. Not bartenders who serve too much. Over-serving someone is a result of the abuse, not the cause. If the person weren't abusing in the first place, they wouldn't ask to be over-served. If someone abuses any other inanimate object, I don't ask who sold it to them, I ask what's wrong with them. So why should abusing alcohol beg the question "who served it to them?" instead of "what's wrong with them?"
 
Last edited:
Binary_Digit said:
I know there are laws. I just don't think they are as effective as better education would be, because they target the symptom instead of the problem. Laws restricting how much bartenders can serve don't do anything to affect how much a person drinks at home, or in the parking lot, or at their neighbor's barbecue, etc. Brain damage, paralysis, families and lives destroyed, drunk driving - these are all problems that stem from alcohol abuse. Not bartenders who serve too much. Over-serving someone is a result of the abuse, not the cause. If the person weren't abusing in the first place, they wouldn't ask to be over-served. If someone abuses any other inanimate object, I don't ask who sold it to them, I ask what's wrong with them. So why should abusing alcohol beg the question "who served it to them?" instead of "what's wrong with them?"
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with much of what you said about the drunk. I disagree that, as a society, we have no responsibility not to exacerbate what a drunk does.

If I sell liquor to a minor (or serve it to him), and he kills someone, I'm going to at least be civilly responsible for the end result. Why? Because it's against the law to sell or serve liquor to a minor.

It's against the law to over-serve as well. If you're saying it shouldn't be, that's another argument. But, in every state, it is.
 
But it's all the hippies smoking pot at the concerts that we should be worried about.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't disagree with much of what you said about the drunk. I disagree that, as a society, we have no responsibility not to exacerbate what a drunk does.

If I sell liquor to a minor (or serve it to him), and he kills someone, I'm going to at least be civilly responsible for the end result. Why? Because it's against the law to sell or serve liquor to a minor.

It's against the law to over-serve as well. If you're saying it shouldn't be, that's another argument. But, in every state, it is.
Click to expand...
Actually, what I've been saying is, these kinds of laws don't target the problem, they target a symptom of the problem, and therefore they are probably going to be less effective than improved education would be. Too many people end up in AA/NA before they learn things that I think everyone should learn in high school.
 
MaggieD said:
It's time for us to start using The Dram Act. Find out where that idiot got his booze and hold deep pockets accountable for tragedies like this. Nothing is going to change until we start going after the bars and restaurants who over-serve and then let someone walk out of their establishments with car keys.

What a tragedy.
Click to expand...

It's not the bar nor restaurant's responsibility. You can sue the city who doesn't offer enough public transport, or artificially reduces the allowed number of cabs in an area too, or didn't have enough checks on DUI, etc. I mean, government has pretty deep pockets, yes?

This whole "sue till we can't do anything" thing actually ends up doing well more damage than good.
 
Ikari said:
It's not the bar nor restaurant's responsibility. You can sue the city who doesn't offer enough public transport, or artificially reduces the allowed number of cabs in an area too, or didn't have enough checks on DUI, etc. I mean, government has pretty deep pockets, yes?

This whole "sue till we can't do anything" thing actually ends up doing well more damage than good.
Click to expand...

Well, we disagree. I think a bar that serves a person until they're blind drunk bears some responsibility. We have laws against it. Why do people object to enforcing them?
 
MaggieD said:
Well, we disagree. I think a bar that serves a person until they're blind drunk bears some responsibility. We have laws against it. Why do people object to enforcing them?
Click to expand...

We have laws against a lot of things, doesn't mean the laws are just. Sometimes, laws are based in emotional retort and bullying.

I object to enforcing quite a few rules, actually. Just because it's on the books doesn't mean it's good (in a general sense). I mean, do you want all those anti-sodomy laws enforced? Some states have archaic laws like that left on the books.
 
MaggieD said:
It's time for us to start using The Dram Act. Find out where that idiot got his booze and hold deep pockets accountable for tragedies like this. Nothing is going to change until we start going after the bars and restaurants who over-serve and then let someone walk out of their establishments with car keys.

What a tragedy.
Click to expand...

It's not the seller's fault that this dude is stupid. There's only one person at fault, here.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, we disagree. I think a bar that serves a person until they're blind drunk bears some responsibility. We have laws against it. Why do people object to enforcing them?
Click to expand...

Do you want gun makers held responsible for gun crime?
 
MaggieD said:
We aren't talking about holding the people who make liquor being held responsible. Poor analogy.
Click to expand...

Might as well. Makes as much sense as holding the seller responsible. Whole we're at it, let's hold the car dealership responsible, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom