I agree that shooting people is bad, and I am not pro-shooting-people. But what is the purpose of this? Is the idea that the fear of losing one's hunting license will be a motivator to not shoot people? Is the idea that the fear of losing one's hunting license will be a greater motivator to not shoot people than a general reluctance to shoot people? "Well, I was going to carelessly blow my brother-in-law's spleen out of his rectum, but boy do I want to hunt next year. Better check my shooting alley again."
If the concern is that someone was negligent or purposeful in shooting another hunter (or other bystander) there are criminal laws for that. I have no real problem with restricting hunting privileges, but this is just silly.
Shooting people is bad.
So if the kid was so reckless with his own life that he caused this accident do you really think a law banning texting and driving would have prevented anything? You can make all sorts of creative laws, but they will only "prevent" accidents if people obey them. Look at studies about accidents in states with cell phone bans. People continue to text, but do so on their laps where the phone is out of view. Unfortunately, that means they look away from the road more often and for longer amounts of time. Laws like this are for fuzzy warm feelings, not efficacy.
"In the end, it was Schatz’s texting that caused the wreck, the patrol and the NTSB determined." That's strange, it would seem to me that Schatz's inattention caused the wreck. I would be very surprised to learn that Schatz wasn't also following too closely to react to the slow down, which would have contributed to the wreck.
I'm not trying to condemn this fellow who lost his life, simply to point out that an inanimate cellphone didn't cause anything. Every time something bad happens we get horrible laws as a result.
Assuming (again, only an assumption, but frankly, a good one) that he was following too closely, why don't the HP enforce the EXISTING LAWS about following too closely, passing on the right, traveling on the left, and speeding. Then we can talk about whether additional laws are necessary.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Great idea, maybe a stripper-occupation of the capitol will bring in some new legislators who aren't just out for a power trip!
Seriously though, just because the law is constitutional does not mean it is a good idea. We see this on both the right and the left and it's disgusting. It's about time the government quits taking my money to protect me from myself or some imagined demon. I wish the Republicans would put up candidates I could actually stomach voting for.
Dear Republican committee: there are lots of real conservatives in Missouri, we're not all religious fundamentalists and neocons. Please quit making us vote for Democrats.
Quit calling yourself a conservative. You are a neo-conservative. I am not calling names, I am just trying to make this a more reasonable discussion by properly applying terms.
I wasn't being rhetorical. The federal government shouldn't be indiscriminatley funding lunch programs. If the school districts don't like the federal government's conditions, they should quit taking federal tax dollars for them. If the lunches were funded entirely by state and local taxes, the federal government has no say.
Excellent post. The real problem here school districts accepting conditional spending, then complaining about the conditions.
It's exciting to see the State Museum once again have the ability to take artifacts into their collection. They have done a great job moving their collection over into the old surplus property building and giving the public access to the stored items with behind the scenes events. Keep it up MSM!
It's great to see the community stepping up to help preserve Missouri's history when budgets get tight!
Last login: Monday, February 4, 2013
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.