Quote Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
As soon as you have a lot of people living in 1 location, that just doesn't work anymore. I can completely follow your reasoning if the only person at risk is you.
As soon as you put other people at risk for no reason at all, that is no longer true.

To take drunk driving: allowing people to drive drunk in a crowded street is similar to putting 1 bullet in a revolver, spinning the cilinder, and shooting at a pedestrian eveyr mile or so. Your argument is basically that it is ok to do so as long as the gun doesn't fire. And you continue the argument that if the gun should fire, there are laws to deal with that.

However, I think the majority of the people just don't want to participate in this game of russian roulette. I otoh say that the person playing russian roulette with passers by should be taken off the streets, even though he has managed (through dumb luck) not to shoot anyone so far.

By the same token, I think that when you approach a busy airport it is the wrong time to find out if you are aware of the relevant protocols and procedures.
Isnt every person on the roads already at risk? Even with the licensing protocol already in place, people get in accidents, there is no way to completely alleviate that risk. A license does not prove you will never hurt another, but it does give you an out of liability. Ie; I got in an accident, but I was a licensed driver, notice how I said because I was licensed I was in the right, what if it was the facts and only the facts counted, you operated your equipment in the wrong way it doesnt matter at all about a license. On the other hand I could say that I havent had a moving violation let alone an accident in the last ten years, even though I am unlicensed. Why is a license the test for one being at fault or not, shouldnt it be their actions?

For drunk driving, do you consider those at .08% BAC unsafe? Are they gauranteed not to hurt others no matter what if below that limit? If above that limit there is no chance they are fine to drive? Speaking from experience, an experience I am not proud of, my DUI's have came at the .18 to .23 levels, at .08% I could drive for years without ever being pulled over, with probable cause. Does that make me an anomoly? I dont think so. I have known people that have driven for fourty years, drunk as hell, but they never do anything that would get them busted, ie; swerving, speeding, wrecking. Is it the amount of achohol that is at fault or peoples driving habits, ie; safe driving that is in question?

Like I said before, people, try to preserve their own life. Would someone go into a position that puts themselves at excessive risk? Let alone put other peoples life at risk? I will agree that a few do, but should we punish the majority for the actions of the minority? There is always the court of law if one feels wrongly put at risk.

Citizens have no right to put others at an unacceptable risk, but IMO, we should have to prove that unacceptability, beyond having a state sanctioned license, since those licensed can already cause risk. It is actions that matter.