[Knitebane]

ventually these laws will probably reduce the problem too. It IS a problem, the vast majority of people just plain can’t handle their can and cell phone at the same time, and these people are killing others, and it’s time to at least slow it down. We can’t stop it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not doing anything.

So you're in favor of a law that will do something but not entirely solve the problem and if the law is intrusive and statist, that's ok.

And apparently you think that special training makes it okay for certain people to be immune from the law but not for mandating that training for everyone instead of having an overly intrusive and statist law that punishes everyone.

Don't want to get accused of putting words in your mouth again, so let me know what part is not accurate.

[discostu]

Let’s play the game your way, since you enjoy putting words in people’s mouth so much (which you did, again, with this post).

So you think that if a law can’t 100% completely solve a problem, thoroughly irradiating the behavior in question, we shouldn’t make it? You’re in favor of eliminating all laws that ever failed to entirely solve a problem?

Let me know if you actually want to discuss what’s actually being said. So far for the last half dozen post all you’ve done is make stupid crap up (much like I did above) and pretend that’s what I’m saying.