Off Topic Post

For the stat guys trying to prove drunk drivers are more dangerous.  You realize that some of those fatalities are one car accidents that only kill the drunk driver right?  I had a 17 year old put a gun to my head and rob me about 6 years ago.  He got about 40 bucks and his two accomplices (18 and 21) stole my dog.  I have also encountered drunk drivers on the road and I personally felt I had more control over the drunk driver situation.  Defensive driving 101  I am more scared of that 85 year old woman who can barely see over the dashboard than I am drunk driver. Shit, at least you can approximate what time the drunks are out and about and look for them.  Nothing like trying to pay for gas, looking over your shoulder praying that someone doesn't come in and rob the place.  All the while here comes granny plowing through the store windows and taking you all out! 

LeftyMark:

What about a bank robber with a drunk get away driver?  Lethal combination right there.

 Statistically speaking, there are obviously more drunk drivers than there are armed robbers.

A lot of times, the armed robbers don't even kill anyone...they just rob with a gun.

The answer is drunk drivers, and it's really not even close fwiw.

More dangerous than a drunk driving robber:

TheWacoKidd:

agpmedia:

Umm, im sorry but your entire post is filled with illogical fallacy. Please reread and look at what you typed maybe? I gave you reported drunk driving fatality incidents PER STATE. Thats death, I would define in this context death as the lone determinant in dangerous. Therefore, knowing that 1/2 million armed robberies were commited in 2006 doesn't really say much other than to point out they happen with a higher frequency than drunk driving fatalities... which isn't really the same thing. Maybe that's what you were elluding too???

However, I could not find in the 5 mins I searched an armed robbery fatality statistics sheet for 2006 so that is what it is. Regardless, I did more work then you did and I win 1-0. :)

you are dumb.

lol

bfactor:

Given that there are more than 400,000 armed robberies per year (in America), I would guess that there are probably around 50,000-100,000 armbed robbers in existance right now (in America).  So there are probably only a few hundred times more drunk drivers than armed robbers.  Not a few hundred thousand times more.  But the overall concept still works:

1.  Armed robbers are more dangerous than drunk drivers (based strictly on percentage of injuries/deaths occuring per attempt)

2.  More total injuries/deaths occur per year from drunk driving than from armed robberies due to the fact that way way way more people go drunk driving than armed robbing per year.  It's still less dangerous per attempt though.  Which is what counts, in a discussion about dangerousness of the activity itself.  Total figures are irrelevant.  Just like mathclub mentioned earlier.  Going skydiving without a parachute is obviously a lot more dangerous than going drunk driving, but it is equally obvious that more deaths will occur each year from drunk driving than from skydiving without a parachute, simply because not very many people go skydiving without a parachute.  It's still more DANGEROUS to go skydiving without a parachute though, just less total deaths because the activity itself is so much less common.

lol at everyone who said DD.  extra lol at the ppl who felt the need to use 'not even close'.  seriously gtfo do you even use your brain

RoyalCrusher:

lol at everyone who said DD.  extra lol at the ppl who felt the need to use 'not even close'.  seriously gtfo do you even use your brain

I do not LOL at manbearpig........I'm cereal!

the drunk driver wou;d need a BAC of .2, be driving in a residential area during the afternoon, and listening to prodigy for me to conisder this comparison close.

RoyalCrusher:

lol at everyone who said DD.  extra lol at the ppl who felt the need to use 'not even close'.  seriously gtfo do you even use your brain

 Drunk Driver...

Now OT...which have you committed?

I going to guess about 90-95 % of us having driving drunk at least once (Drunk meaning over your states limit...not when you actually feel drunk)

mathclub:

bfactor:

Given that there are more than 400,000 armed robberies per year (in America), I would guess that there are probably around 50,000-100,000 armbed robbers in existance right now (in America).  So there are probably only a few hundred times more drunk drivers than armed robbers.  Not a few hundred thousand times more.  But the overall concept still works:

1.  Armed robbers are more dangerous than drunk drivers (based strictly on percentage of injuries/deaths occuring per attempt)

2.  More total injuries/deaths occur per year from drunk driving than from armed robberies due to the fact that way way way more people go drunk driving than armed robbing per year.  It's still less dangerous per attempt though.  Which is what counts, in a discussion about dangerousness of the activity itself.  Total figures are irrelevant.  Just like mathclub mentioned earlier.  Going skydiving without a parachute is obviously a lot more dangerous than going drunk driving, but it is equally obvious that more deaths will occur each year from drunk driving than from skydiving without a parachute, simply because not very many people go skydiving without a parachute.  It's still more DANGEROUS to go skydiving without a parachute though, just less total deaths because the activity itself is so much less common.

what bfactor said. 

note the OP is A drunk driver vs AN armed robber.  not drunk drivers vs armed robbers total, but one of each vs each other.  therefore dot dot dot fucking ship it to armed robbers being way more dangerous as individuals than drunk drivers are.