how about burglary...breaking and entering, no violence, no one is home?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

So it's alright to kill someone if you have a reason (In your opinion)? Makes as much sense as you pro-drunk driving stance.

__________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."
~ Oscar Wilde

It's trespass, a property rights violation.

Edit: Yes, I think it should be a crime. I have not decided yet if it should be punished with jail time. Also, what I am arguing here is that drunk driving shouldn't be a crime at all, not what the punishment should be.

You know what else doesn't make sense (besides what you wrongly attributed to me)? Your suggested attributing to me of something I didn't say.

Hint: it depends on the reason. one reason might be self-defense. I'm sure that never crossed your mind.

I quoted your post. You might want to read your own post again. What did I wrongly attribute to you?

In your last post why did you offer a thought as an aside in parenthesis and then state the exact same thought right afterwards. Are you drunk. Is that why you think I'm wrongly attributing things to you? Save a life and stay at home while your intoxicated like this.

__________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."
~ Oscar Wilde

You suggested that I held the following opinion: "it's alright to kill someone if you have a reason." I did not say that.I said that the idea you attributed to me was absurd ("it's alright to kill someone if you have a reason") as it implies any reason, and the fact that you attributed to me (I didn't say it) was absurd, too.Right, because every drunk driving incident involves a vehicular collision, or even death/injury.

The idea that reckless activity is alright because someone doesn't get hurt or die every time is absurd. If I pushed 100 people down a flight of stairs and only 3 of those people died it would be fine? NO. Because I am putting innocent people in undue danger. I know you probably think this way because you are a "good drunk driver." The people who get into accidents feel the same way before they kill a family of four.

__________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."
~ Oscar Wilde

Do you have some stats that say it's that dangerous? And I'm talking percentages, here.Uh, it wouldn't be okay even if none of them got hurt because pushing people down stairs (I am assuming against their will) is a violent action against them. A better scenario would be: should you be banned from running because there is a 3% chance that you might accidentally collide with and kill someone?You put them in danger when you drive, anyway. Let me ask you a relevant question on the side. Would you consider banning and severely punishing (as you do DUIs) drives who, for example, converse, play with the radio, eat, etc... while driving? Seems like "undue danger" similar to that of drunk driving, don't you think?I don't drink and drive. Perhaps you ought to give this whole "probably" thing a rest, huh?Likewise, I'm sure people who drive sober don't expect to crash and kill anyone, either.

Drunk driving statistics

__________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."
~ Oscar Wilde

I've seen that before. Specifically what statistics from that article will you use to back up your argument?