5 Popular Safety Laws That Dont Actually Work page 4

Who decides which laws are reasonable? The same people who made the unreasonable laws in the first place?

Your hypothetical situation of “no unreasonable laws” is not even worth addressing.

Putting someone in jail for life for stealing a pizza seems unreasonable.

Originally posted by Carados:

Putting someone in jail for life for stealing a pizza seems unreasonable.

Hey, it’s illegal to chew gum in Singapore, right? Or did they change that law… >_>

You can’t possibly be serious, can you?

Do you seriously think that someone in front of you holding to 50 when you feel you could be going (say) 85 is somehow not more aggravating than someone holding you to 50 when you’d only be pushing it to 55 or 60?

On streets in urban areas, speed limits make fairly good sense. Highways and the open road, on the other hand, are quite different situations and it doesn’t make a lot of sense to actually enforce a maximum speed on those areas (though on multilane highways, having different lanes for people who like to drive at different speeds helps traffic flow).

I just had to respond to this, even though it was on the second page:

The Sex Offender Registry’s purpose is to warn parents that someone has harmed a child so the parents know better than to leave their child with a sicko, I do not think that you can make the argument that we should not have it because it isolates the offenders and increases the likelihood of another offense. Parents deserve to know if the new house or apartment they are moving into is next door to an offenders. It would be crazy to keep these parents completely in the dark. If you had a toddler and an offender lived next door, you would want to know, right? It would be irresponsible to not know.

Just to make this absolutely clear: the registry of sex offenders has nothing to do with children. Nothing. Yes, some people who are on the registry sexually abused children, but that’s not why they’re on there – they’re on there for sex offences. Having sex with your 16 or 17 year old girlfriend is a sex offence – even if you’re not yet eighteen. Indeed, in a recent case, some underage girls were convicted of distributing child pornography because they sent their boyfriends sexy pictures of themselves – they could have ended up on the sex offender registry for that. Not just that, but entirely non-sexual things can get you put on there – peeing in public and streaking are both sex offences.

The vast majority of people on the registry of sex offenders have never touched a child.

Further: if you’re worried about your child being abused, keep them the hell away from your family. Most child abuse is committed by relatives – after all, when is J. Random Pedophile going to have a chance at little Timmy? Uncle Joe, on the other hand, lives in the next town over and sometimes babysits for free.

Do you seriously think that someone in front of you holding to 50 when you feel you could be going (say) 85 is somehow not more aggravating than someone holding you to 50 when you’d only be pushing it to 55 or 60?

What are you talking about?

I obey the speed limits simply to see how crazy people get behind and around me when a driver is not breaking the law. I am always amazed at how angry people get that I am driving the speed limit that is POSTED.

I am in no way going to break the law and get a ticket so they can get to where they are going faster. If the government says the speed limit is now higher, I will go that limit.

Gas mileage tanks over 65mpg anyway.

I am also a ‘green’ driver, and I get close to 45 ‘true’ MPG in the city by using various methods – mostly sane driving, minimal breaking and accelerating, ( I never go above 1500RPM, unless needed for an emergency ) going into neutral as much as possible, etc.

I don’t do the dangerous stuff like drifting trucks on the highway.. that’s just insane. My life is not worth 100 MPG.

That video Greg posted was very entertaining. I just LOVE seeing how angry and upset people get at me. It makes my day, every day.

The most fun I ever had is when this guy was tailgating me honking his horn on a one way no pass road for over 5 miles as I was going the speed limit – 55. As we got close to town he broke the double solids and from my estimate charged past me at near 90mph and kept going.

To my amusement way down the road I saw a police car’s lights turn on and he busted the guy who passed me! lol I had to pull over in the town because I was laughing so hard I was almost crying and it would have been dangerous to drive.

But to sum it up, the reasons for the speed limit is simple – slower speeds it is easier to slow down and you have more time to react. Faster speeds takes longer to slow down and you do not have as much time to react.

Also, human nature. If we set the speed limit at 55, everyone breaks the law and goes 65. If we set it at 65, everyone breaks the law and goes 75. If we set it to 85, people will drive close to 100mph.

I am a confident driver because the law is on my side, I treat EVERYTHING that drives on the road as a enemy out to harm me, and I keep a mental ‘radar’ of all the bad guys. I am a aggressively defensive driver. Being passive agressive is also a GREAT stress reliever.

I am thinking about mounting a digital recorder to my dashboard and rearview so I can reply the fun, post it online.

Perhaps a site that shows actual road rage… lol

americanroadrage.com? lol

Originally posted by greg:

Who decides which laws are reasonable? The same people who made the unreasonable laws in the first place?

Your hypothetical situation of “no unreasonable laws” is not even worth addressing.

You just don’t want to answer.

I said if every unreasonable law was removed would you still be against it? It is worth addressing, if you say yes then i could answer with a different answer then if you said no.

Originally posted by Carados:

Putting someone in jail for life for stealing a pizza seems unreasonable.

They know the punishment, so they deserve it if they still do it.

I am a confident driver because the law is on my side

That is absolutely incorrect. Your behavior in the post you describe is illegal, as is the behavior in the video I posted. My friend’s father got a ticket for going 70 mph on a highway with a speed limit of 65. He got the ticket for going too slow.

Going at a far different speed from everyone else on the road is as illegal as it is dangerous, even if you are driving the exact speed limit. If everyone on the road is driving 80 mph, there is no legal way for you to drive on the road.

Our laws are awesome.

They know the punishment, so they deserve it if they still do it.

Next time you make a post on these forums, your account will be banned permanently. It’s fair because you know the punishment.

Originally posted by zamininc:

Originally posted by greg:

Who decides which laws are reasonable? The same people who made the unreasonable laws in the first place?

Your hypothetical situation of “no unreasonable laws” is not even worth addressing.

You just don’t want to answer.

I said if every unreasonable law was removed would you still be against it? It is worth addressing, if you say yes then i could answer with a different answer then if you said no.

Originally posted by Carados:

Putting someone in jail for life for stealing a pizza seems unreasonable.

They know the punishment, so they deserve it if they still do it.

People like me, who do not commit crimes and have no desire to do so, have the moral high ground and can set what is ‘reasonable’. Period.

Stealing is a crime, but going to jail for life is not the reason if it’s your THIRD STRIKE. What, did you think they were joking? If you commit three crimes it’s game over. You have proven you are a loser that does not want to play by the rules set by people who DO play by the rules. Like myself.

If it were up to me I would execute all third strike offenders. Watch in amazement as the crime numbers drop.

Originally posted by greg:

I am a confident driver because the law is on my side

That is absolutely incorrect. Your behavior in the post you describe is illegal, as is the behavior in the video I posted. My friend’s father got a ticket for going 70 mph on a highway with a speed limit of 65. He got the ticket for going too slow.

Going at a far different speed from everyone else on the road is as illegal as it is dangerous, even if you are driving the exact speed limit. If everyone on the road is driving 80 mph, there is no legal way for you to drive on the road.

Our laws are awesome.

Sorry, but not here. My family is more important to me than what others do.

Your logic cannot break the laws of physics.

If I am going slower with my family, I have more time to stop and more time to think my escape path.

If I am going faster with my family in the car, I have less time to stop and less time to find my escape path.

I have never been pulled over in my 12 years of driving like this.

Sorry if this offends your lead foot.

Originally posted by Vanguarde:

Originally posted by zamininc:

Originally posted by greg:

Who decides which laws are reasonable? The same people who made the unreasonable laws in the first place?

Your hypothetical situation of “no unreasonable laws” is not even worth addressing.

You just don’t want to answer.

I said if every unreasonable law was removed would you still be against it? It is worth addressing, if you say yes then i could answer with a different answer then if you said no.

Originally posted by Carados:

Putting someone in jail for life for stealing a pizza seems unreasonable.

They know the punishment, so they deserve it if they still do it.

People like me, who do not commit crimes and have no desire to do so, have the moral high ground and can set what is ‘reasonable’. Period.

Stealing is a crime, but going to jail for life is not the reason if it’s your THIRD STRIKE. What, did you think they were joking? If you commit three crimes it’s game over. You have proven you are a loser that does not want to play by the rules set by people who DO play by the rules. Like myself.

If it were up to me I would execute all third strike offenders. Watch in amazement as the crime numbers drop.

I have no idea why you quoted me. Or did you mean to quote greg?

i dunno about executing third strike offenders, but i do have a huge intolerance to violent crime or drug related crime. i think if you get caught stealing, without violence added, it just means you are a dumbass that cannot reason a logical approach to committing your crime and should be up for rehabilitation, because rehabilitation can teach you to live within your financial means. however if you are able to get away with theft for a duration then you are a career criminal and should be punished accordingly. its not hard to live within the laws provided by government. i do not see why we would give pity to some and not others……..many times this obligation falls onto the person who is accusing another.

Sorry, but not here. My family is more important to me than what others do.

And doesn’t it suck when keeping them safe is illegal?

I’m not even talking about traffic specifically; my point is just that we have a lot of really stupid laws.

Let’s say someone breaks into your house. He opens the door to a family member’s room. You whack him over the head with a golf club. He dies. Turns out he was unarmed, and no threat to you. But it was dark; how could you have known? You’ve committed a felony.

This happens 3 times. You’d support the death penalty for yourself?

Originally posted by greg:

Sorry, but not here. My family is more important to me than what others do.

And doesn’t it suck when keeping them safe is illegal?

im sorry where are you talking about?

Originally posted by greg:

Sorry, but not here. My family is more important to me than what others do.

And doesn’t it suck when keeping them safe is illegal?

I’m not even talking about traffic specifically; my point is just that we have a lot of really stupid laws.

Let’s say someone breaks into your house. He opens the door to a family member’s room. You whack him over the head with a golf club. He dies. Turns out he was unarmed, and no threat to you. But it was dark; how could you have known? You’ve committed a felony.

This happens 3 times. You’d support the death penalty for yourself?

It’s a law to kill someone who breaks into your house? What a stupid law.

Next time you make a post on these forums, your account will be banned permanently. It’s fair because you know the punishment.

That’s like sending a person to jail because there’s a “no human” law, it’s just unreasonable and has no reason. Plus reasonable laws never single out a single person.

You shouldn’t have killed them, you know the law.

Originally posted by Carados:

You shouldn’t have killed them, you know the law.

and risk being killed? im sorry id rather take the road that is better alive than dead! in TN i could shoot you in the back of the head as you were fleeing and so long as you were in side my home/residence i would be legally justified to do so.

in TN i could shoot you in the back of the head as you were fleeing and so long as you were in side my home/residence i would be legally justified to do so.

Incorrect.

Originally posted by greg:

in TN i could shoot you in the back of the head as you were fleeing and so long as you were in side my home/residence i would be legally justified to do so.

Incorrect.

you sure about that?

here i give you
http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/15780-legal-perspectives-use-deadly-force.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/105/pub/pc0210.pdf

keep in mind in TN it is a given that an unlawful intruder in a residence is there to do bodily harm…..im having trouble locating this in text but i have had numerous police officers lawyers judges and people tell me this.

OHSHI!! wiki?! You know it’s true if it’s on wiki.

keep in mind in TN it is a given that an unlawful intruder in a residence is there to do bodily harm…..im having trouble locating this in text but i have had numerous police officers lawyers judges and people tell me this.

also: my mother is a lawyer, does this matter? The correct answer is no.

If you read that wiki page and the pdf, they actually state that you may only use force if the person is going to commit a crime, including illegal entry or bringing harm to an occupant of the house. Someone fleeing your house is hardly at risk of committing anything of the sort.

Originally posted by Carados:

You shouldn’t have killed them, you know the law.

Im sure self defence could still be used.

Originally posted by zamininc:

Originally posted by Carados:

You shouldn’t have killed them, you know the law.

Im sure self defence could still be used.

aren’t they dead?

also:

Next time you make a post on these forums, your account will be banned permanently. It’s fair because you know the punishment.

why are you still here?

What laws are “reasonable” and what laws are not is a thorny subject.

Since “reasonable” is a subjective term, people have many points of view on the subject.

On the issue of the Sex Offender Registry, it is flawed because even the most minor infractions are in there, along with the most heinous ones, and because of human nature, most people are going to assume that anyone on the list is one the “heinous” end of the spectrum, when in reality very few might be.

As far as home invasion goes, here is a rough quote on biblical law that may be pertinent: “If a man sneaks into your house with ill intent, and you strike him down without seeing him, you are blameless, but if the light shines upon him (you see that he is unarmed/harmless) and you strike him down, then you shall be blamed.”

Landfieldjc, just because it is on wikipedia does not mean it is inaccurate, if you are in doubt, check the wiki’s sources.

-