Quote:
Originally Posted by Onesie
I understand that, and agree in principle.
My issue with it is: how harsh of a penalty would you accept for someone who killed your son because they were intoxicated while driving?
I'd rather have it be prevented.
And, no, it doesn't apply to gun control before someone jumps in and say they're the same. Maybe gun control to a mental unstable (intoxication is a temporary state of mental instability) would be the same, and aren't we all for that?
Again, if technology existed that didn't make me wait or do anything new (I.e. blow on a breathalyzer), but could stop cars from being driven by drunks, I'd be for it. Last one  my opinion has been cast. Cheers |
I am supportive of extremely harsh penalties, mandatory jail time seems like a bare minimum.
The cost of prevention in this case is likely exorbitant.
Honestly. A 500 dollar piece of equipment in every vehicle in America?
You are talking something in the order of a quarter billion dollars of cost. To save how many lives? Probably a lot fewer than you would think.
The whole concept reeks of “if it just saves one live” flawed logic.