Just so

Reminds me of Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" - the broken glass of the butcher's shop means the Glazier has work repairing the window. But the money required for the repair would have been employed creating something new that had not previously existed (from memory the example was a new suit).

The cost of repairs from the accident and/or traffic tickets could have lead to the creation of new wealth instead of being uselessly being consumed ( using the original sense of 'consumption' - slowly wasting away)

And people wonder why the economy is so sluggish - the would-be entrepreneur no longer has the money required to bootstrap his idea to the stage of proving feasibility of the concept where investors see value in committing their resources.

"They can't shoot "my guns", only their own."
If they're entitled to have guns, i.e. they're not using them to commit crimes, I can't imagine why they can use guns belonging to another lawful gun owners. It sounds like harassment as you say.

Sorry, the key word in my statement actually was "my". They can't shoot "my guns", only their own. Shooting my gun would constitute "possession", and the only way to posses my gun would be for me to "transfer" it to them. A "transfer" requires a "background check". And to get it back again, yes you guessed it, another change in possession therefor another background check for me to get my gun back. That's the farce about this new law, it's for "CONTROL", and eventually a "gun registry". Also some legal jumble about confiscation without due process. It was advertised telling lies about gun shows in WA State, we already do go through a background check every time we buy a gun. The law was supposedly designed and advertised to stop street sales from occurring. I'm sure that will occur form now on. I'm also sure the garbage they added to harass legal gun owners was just an oversight. Yah, sure!!!

"The people just passed I-594, making it illegal for me and my son (or anyone) to go shooting with my guns."
You can't shoot guns in the state of Washington? If that's true, I can't imagine the tortured logic the courts would use to say that doesn't violate the Second Amendment.

I-594 has nothing to do with preventing "gun violence" and everything to do with another step toward disarming the citizens. I know you already knew that, Neal, but it is worth repeating every time these bogus laws are brought up by the left. To remind everyone of what the end game truly is, tyranny.
That this passed in WA is no surprise. When I lived there, I saw the "Californication" of WA taking place and decided to move on. Of course, it helped the decision process that my spouse's folks needed help in OK. Much better now in the Midwest, where we can live and prosper and live among conservative and logical folks. For the most part.
Wonder what the left has promised Gates for his support of all their crap?
I feel for ya, Neal. Move before it becomes California north.

You say, "I don't think anything unusually bad, as human history goes, is happening at the moment." I beg to differ, I just saw the results of our election in Washington State. The people just passed I-594, making it illegal for me and my son (or anyone) to go shooting with my guns. If he or anyone else, even my spouse, touches one it is considered a transfer and must first be transferred legally only after a background check. Then after we transfer and do our shooting, in order for me to take my gun back we need to go through another background check before I can touch them again. This law was passed because Bloomberg sent a lot of his money here and between him and Bill Gates they decided to deceive the people and sneak the true intent of their bill through by covering it up with lies about it just being background checks for transfers between people. They also lied about background checks not being required at gun shows to get people to vote for it. All gun owners here will soon be felons by this ridiculous law. It's effects on the criminals will be nothing. I've got to find another state to move to, or I should I be looking for a new country?

Dear NSA, I'm just kidding. This is really someone else writing this, it is not really me.

"I'm thankful that we get old and die before we see all the destruction from where we started. "
I think it's always been this way. Operating illogically is the norm for human history. It's actually gotten better, not everywhere in every way, but the average person can reason better today than 500 years ago. I don't think anything unusually bad, as human history goes, is happening at the moment.

hear hear

Exactly!
I am fed up with the far greater dangers prohibition engenders (particularly in the form of the "DEA".)

I think any Congress worth its salt [fat chance] should be required to repeal one law for every law passed, and not be allowed to stray into the old "it shall be against the law in the city of Boulder to carry a metal lunch box on Pearl Street." kind of laws. Maybe number of words repealed for number of words passed.

No, but it is hard to see how it would be different.

Yes and citizens should be able to challenge laws for their effectiveness - those laws that don't meet there stated objectives (efficiently) should be null and void.

Precisely, it's the new way, hope and change. That actually should have read hype and change.

And, if you don't have the facts or stats, just make up something, it seems the majority will just believe it anyway. If it sounds good it must be good.

It all reminds me of the election of 2008, but even more so of 2012. It's unbelievable where we have gone, and I'm thankful that we get old and die before we see all the destruction from where we started.

legalize all drugs

Hear hear

Thanks

I'm getting a little more fed up with the lies and nonsense from many of these organizations anymore. State the problem, state the solution, and enforce the law, period. The lies and deceptions only cause loss of credibility, and that's what we spend most of our time arguing about, the bull stuff (if you know what I mean).

Here in WA State, I-594 (Gun Registration in disguise) is a bunch of lies. Perhaps it has one good point in the bill, but the majority of it is to take away more freedoms from it's law abiding citizens. It will do nothing to prevent what it is proposed to do, stop shootings in theaters, schools, etc. The problem with the bill is that there is too much "pork" added in it that has nothing to do with the problem it is trying to correct. It's like Obamacare on guns. Now I found there are even conservatives, Second Amendment believers, that are voting for it, because it has perhaps one good point of law, never mind the "pork" parts that will make most law abiding citizens of the state criminals*. Why can't we understand that laws need to be written to solve a particular problem, and leave the personal political benefits out of them? Why do our murder laws now allow 10 and 15 year sentences? Perhaps sentences should be equal to the crime.

*Then again, if we put all law abiding citizens in the prisons, won't that leave the rest of the state to the criminals? Since they will all be criminals, will that cause all the laws to become extinct? It reminds me of how I perceive how our Department of Justice mostly operates today.

It is sad. It reminds me of the DARE program.

perfect example of corruption. Thank You, Dale!!! -- j

Why give tickets when they do not reduce the number of accidents?
A partly rational answer, tickets raise money which can enable compensation to victims. Unfortunately, any excuse for a tax or a ticket always gets proponents, there is little countervailing argument.
Same with taxis, regulation benefits the existing drivers and owners by hindering competition so they are vocal in support, and enables regulatory 'safety' and taxing mechanisms. -more work and more income for government.

Another example of power and money grabbing masquerading as altruism and supported by tear jerking rather than thought.
Another example of corporate support being given for superficial do-gooding.

Thanks, db. Have any specifically on traffic tickets effect on safety instead of driving with substances?