Driver faces DUII charge after deadly SE Portland crash

@Sundowner You just dont WANT to see the difference. dkgiovenco's comment was in RESPONSE to I812's comment about the drunk driver living and the passenger dying and what should have a very easy underlying idea is that dkgiovenco wished for the OPPOSITE to be true. It's called CONTEXT and to fully understand, you have to read the surrounding information. Almost ANY stand alone comment on here could be misconstrued if that is your intention.

@randola Yes, the passenger was complicit in getting in the car with a drunk driver. It should not be a death sentence but people have to live (or die) with the conseguences of the choices they make. I (like dkgiovenco), wish that IF someone has to die in a drunk driving crash (cant really call it an accident) that it would be the drunk driver and not anyone else.

 @Sundowner  @scared_citizen Well, doubtful the passenger was sober. Just two drunks hangin' together and this guy was the one with the car. If the passenger was sober, he chose to ride with the drunk guy. Actually, he chose to ride with him either way.

 @scared_citizen "Get over yourself"?  That's what dkgiovenco said, "I long for a story where the DUI driver gets killed and the passenger lives".  Sorry to disappoint, but people respond to comments made based on what the comment SAYS, not what it doesn't say.

@Dr. Rawdog He did not "wish" for his "fellow human" to die. What he wished is that if the drunk driver or a passenger had to die, he would prefer it be the drunk driver. Get over yourself.

 @Dr. Rawdog  @dkgiovenco what kind of held does dkgiovenso need to seek? being more understanding of drunks that drink, drive and murder?

@OliverNicholas That makes sense. Very insightful comment.

@I812 I agree except for the part where you said; "Make the prisoners work everyday at something that enables the State to sell a product".  I feel they should do nothing but jobs that make the prison facility self sustaining.  If we start selling products made from prisoners it creates a whole workforce of slaves, some deserving in some peoples eyes and some not.  It's more of a bad reflection on us if we were to use them in a manner for profit, because whats stopping the prison system from lobbying for something now legal to be illegal and begin rounding up what were once law abiding citizens to a slave labor worforce.  It may not be as unbelievable as people think.

@I812 I agree with you on that too.

@gbudavid Apologies.  It's often difficult to tell sarcasm or even joking on something "flat" like comments, texts, emails....again, oops.  =)

 @scared_citizen  Confused about.......???

 @Dr. Rawdog  @Umhal Raw, I agree with you and would add that private sale of guns should also be looked at as contributory to the problem of guns getting into the wrong hands. Not a popular view I imagine, but if only dealers need to do background checks then that leaves a lot of ground uncovered.

@Sundowner You are confused.

 @Umhal  @Dr. Rawdog That may well be true, but it's the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union and our civil liberties are part and parcel of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  These same people that decry the ACLU for standing up for the rights of the disenfranchised (any race, sex, whatever) want their own civil liberty of owning guns protected above and beyond all else.  My feeling is that you can't have it both ways.  I've loathed the ACLU's defense of KKK members, but that's what they do -- protect the civil liberties of all, not just those that are politically correct.  Mark my words, when this gun debate gets even more strained, the 'gunners' will suddenly LOVE the ACLU.  And I will call them hypocrites.  

 

As for the civility, I try desperately to not resort to name-calling of other commenters.  Yesterday I lost it with 'sortbait' due to his game-playing.  http://www.katu.com/news/national/Obama-to-set-optimistic-tone-for-his-second-inauguration-187729151.html.  I think I called him a wuss and a wimp.  Since I have the vocabularity of an old-time sailor, my thoughts were far more vivid and descriptive.  *sigh* 

 @scared_citizen Sticking my nose into a good debate where I have no business, but saying that safer cars and roads are the cause of fewer deaths equates to saying guns kill people....am I right?  That's what it sounds like you're saying.  Maybe I'm confused.

@Dr. Rawdog No, I think that you mistakenly think that increased DUI laws have caused the lower DUI death rate. If that were the cause, ONLY DUI car deaths would be decreased but what we have seen is that ALL car accidents deaths have decreased. Instead, I propose that safer cars and safer roads have caused this decline.

 @Sundowner  @Dr. Rawdog Agreed (civility)  (admission:)  I have fallen prey to the name calling and diatribing, just as most of us have... hence my "it's a new day" comment.

 

Those whom you reference re: the ACLU are, in my opinion, reacting to the early years' activities of the ACLU, specifically their propensity (at that time) to take cases along a racially-divided line.  Now, I dare say there are a large number of people ('gunners' included) who believe in removing any racial bias in one direction or another.  THAT would be true equality.  THAT is something the ACLU has only in later years come to embrace.  But that's just my opinion of what you've mentioned.

 @Umhal  @Dr. Rawdog Civil comment about a very serious issue that needs more civil discourse, IMO.  I find it ironic that so many 'gunners' (extremists) hate the ACLU but want their civil liberties protected.  Just a thought.

 @Dr. Rawdog I don't see you as a gun banner, neither of us are such alarmists, and I wouldn't brand you as such.  I asked open-ended questions so as to have a healthy conversation without name calling and rhetoric. (not that you have engaged in either.)  Today's a new day, and once again I hope to have meaningful discourse as to how we move forward - such as your wish list for increasing gun owner's responsibilities to secure their weapons and to keep them out of the hands of those who are already disallowed from having them.

 

I, too, would like to include those that lack the mental stability for responsible ownership on the list of people disallowed, but it's not a simple task. It's a task that easily runs afoul of more than one Constitutionally guaranteed right, one that often sets a panel of arbitrary "overseers" in a position to decide the definition of "mentally unstable" and a host of other issues.  It's just not a simple thing to actually get done, yet i'm eager to hear how we can do it, particularly if an acceptable answer can be found that upholds all the Constitutionally guaranteed rights and does not preemptively punish the law abiding.

 

A nice example of a suggestion, as we've heard here before, would be something technological, biometric locks...  Then we can debate the methods and relative merits of that suggestion.  Hopefully, we can keep that debate on-topic.

 @Dr. Rawdog  How much tougher do you want our gun laws to be?  To be clear, i'm asking an open-ended question here - commit a crime with a gun and there SHOULD be very harsh penalties, I doubt there's much argument with that sentiment.  

 

Another open-ended question:

Is the focus of your statement to intone that increasing penalties for gun crimes would reduce loss of life?  (meaning, is this about saving lives?)

 

Your asertation that "Drunk driving deaths are down 52% since 1982, largely the result of tougher DUI laws." would seem to indicate more harsh penalties for those who commit crimes with guns.  I'm all for that, too!

If however you are thinking to limit otherwise law abiding people's access to guns then we part ideological ways because I don't believe it's acceptable to hold people accountable for breaking laws before they actually break them.  Now once the law is broken, then throw the book at the offender, but not before the law is broken.

 

The second article you linked is not very convincing as it's filled with innuendo and supposition.  Furthermore, the fact that homicides have risen slightly when compared to a large drop in traffic fatalities has more to do with the traffic fatalities having decreased than it does homicide rates having risen. 

That second article admits that overall violent crimes have diminished. Also admits there is no casual relationship between the number of guns in circulation and the number of crimes comitted.

"The drop in gun deaths since 1993 may be a result of less violence from drug trafficking, more people incarcerated and more police crackdowns on illegal firearms, according to both Webster and Wintemute." which would indicate that gun crimes remain fairly constant and better enforcement of existing laws has been effective at decreasing the bloodshed.

But it's supposition either way, because it's so difficult to prove the relationship is a direct one.