[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Laws Named After Victims Are Always Well-Meaning, and Usually Bad Policy More than a few times in recent years, tragic—and seemingly preventable—deaths have led to bills and legislation named after the victims. “Megan’s Law” gave us problematic sex-offender registrations. “Kate’s Law” was a failed attempt to deter illegal immigration. Such proposals are frequently bad policy that the government shouldn't be engaged in. And now we have “Kari’s Law." It's based on a Texas law, and sponsored in Congress by the political odd couple of Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) in the House, and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) in the Senate. It's a bill that would "require multi-line telephone systems to have a default configuration that permits users to directly initiate a call to 9-1-1 without dialing any additional digit, code, prefix, or post-fix." Why is it named Kari's law? I suspect you know. Because of a gruesome murder in 2013 in Texas: The downside of seizing on an emotions stirred by a gruesome murder to make sweeping changes to federal law are especially apparent here. The decline of landlines and the rise of cell phones mean that almost anyone can call 9-1-1 immediately without having to unlock a device, much less actually dial 9-1-1. I don't know whether Dunn or her children had cell phones. But while her death is tragic, it's a statistical rarity. Should it result in a law that affects the more than 50,000 hoteliers in the country? Landline systems are are an increasingly less relevant in today's world, but businesses that use them might face costly upgrades under Kari's Law. Further, it’s impossible to know if such laws could have prevented the tragedy that spawned them, or curtail future deaths. Dunn’s estranged husband Brad has basically said that if Kari's Law were around, whe would still be dead because he was intent on killing her. Brad Dunn still thinks the Texas version of Kari's law is good because it could help people save precious seconds if somebody were to have a heart attack in a hotel room. Yes, Kari's Law has the endorsement of Kari's killer, even though ... it wouldn't have saved her. Larger chains like Marriott are catering to millennials who hate phone calls (seriously) and prefer text messaging. In fact, Marriott allows people to check into their room via an app, and some hotels even send automated texts to guests after they check in to make sure their stay is going OK. Those sorts of hotels are even getting rid of landlines completely. But imagine a rural motel with an outdated system—a classic low-margin business. They're faced with a potential federal law that gives them two years to upgrade a system made by a company that went out business a decade ago. If it can't be upgraded, it'd have to be replaced, and not for cheap. Wouldn't Kari's law, if enacted, give that hotelier the incentive to just get rid of landlines altogether and just put a placard with the front desk phone number? And if a murderer came and cell reception was bad, what would happen? We'd probably need another law, I'd guess. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 7. "Such proposals are frequently bad policy that the government shouldn't be engaged in." Not the federal government. But if a state wishes to pass these kinds of laws, who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do? It's their state and they can write a specific law that suits them. We have that for car standards and gun safety, for example.
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
And marijuana too! Good idea.
#3. To: Pinguinite (#2) And marijuana too! Good idea. Alcohol, by the way, is regulated at the state level.
#6. To: misterwhite (#3) Yet you are opposed to states passing their own marijuana laws, claiming that states should not attempt to undermine federal law when it comes to marijuana. I agree that fed jurisdiction should only cover those issues that need to be covered at the fed level out of pure necessity, such as with the military and international trade. But 911 systems, alcohol & marijuana issues have no business being regulated at the federal level. States are states for a reason. If everything is supposed to be the same between all states, then what's the point of having state governments?
#7. To: Pinguinite (#6) "Yet you are opposed to states passing their own marijuana laws, claiming that states should not attempt to undermine federal law when it comes to marijuana." Yes. That's the primary reason. But, secondarily, it wouldn't work. What's more, YOU KNOW it wouldn't work yet you unabashedly promote it. Prior to Prohibition about half the states banned alcohol. But alcohol was smuggled from the "wet" states to the "dry" states. The only solution was to ban alcohol at the federal level. That wouldn't happen with drugs? And if each state should be allowed to make their own decision on marijuana, why limit it to that? I'm sure Nevada would love to legalize all drugs -- to go with their legalized gambling and prostitution. You're opening a Pandora's box, and you don't seem to care.
Replies to Comment # 7. But, secondarily, it wouldn't work. What's more, YOU KNOW it wouldn't work yet you unabashedly promote it.
Prior to Prohibition about half the states banned alcohol. But alcohol was smuggled from the "wet" states to the "dry" states. The only solution was to ban alcohol at the federal level. ... to accommodate the dry states at the expense of the wet states, as though the wet states had any such obligation. That's not a "solution" for states that had, in retrospect, wisely not banned alcohol. In your mind, there is a utopian world that is within reach where all laws are perfect solutions to all the world's problems. Simply ban things that you think are harming the world, and all those bad things will go away. That is traditional liberal thinking but one you insist on making just like they do.
What's more, YOU KNOW it wouldn't work yet you unabashedly promote it. What doesn't work is prohibition. It didn't work with alcohol, and it's not working with marijuana. I am personally opposed to rec use of marijuana, but I am even more opposed to people getting killed or imprisoned and their homes raided by SWAT teams simply because governments decided it's bad for you. The USA is supposed to be about freedom, and with freedom comes responsibility. If you take away people's responsibility, you also take away their freedom. But you don't care about that.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 7. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|