This thread is sur-real.

Flods. Truly massive flods.

Indeed, there have been several truly massive flods over the years. The Zanclean flood that is theorized to have flooded the Mediterranean sea 5.33 million years age (long before homo sapiens roamed) may have exhibited water rising at 10 meters per day. However, the Black Sea deluge, while much smaller, could have happened circa 5600 BC. It's entirely possible that this was the basis for many of the flood myths that are common in the region.

It's also located directly below the continental United States. You should be fine with saying it's 400 miles down if you expect Americans to speak in terms of kilometers when they find themselves in your SI or metric neighborhood.

When in Rome...

Wouldn't that confirm what BP is saying? Assuming that you harbor rational self-interest, isn't it true that you don't want additional competition in your industry? If that's the case, then why wouldn't you be scared of any legislation that makes it easier for millions of smart people to enter your industry as additional competition?

And these mass shootings, what percentage of firearm violence do they account for? Also, in these mass shootings, how often are handguns used to kill people?

Red herring much? Mass shootings are relatively isolated incidents that account for a negligible percentage of firearm violence, and predominantly involve long guns. Handguns are responsible for a majority of firearm violence, but they're used in inner city gang-related violence, not mass shootings.

Besides, you're comparing the US and the UK. If you're really such a fan of apples-to-oranges comparison, answer me this: how many mass shootings has Switzerland experienced since they mandated ownership of rifles?

Interesting, the green fireballs. I wonder what that was all about.

I think you might be missing the point.

Sure, I could take a stretch limo to a bar that serves Louis XIII de Rémy Martin. Then, as long as I drank at least a single shot, the cost of the limo would be a mere fraction of what I spent on alcohol.

The point was that we're not all fantastically rich, and that while spending more on alcohol will make the taxi account for proportionally less of the night's cost, it will still increase the total cost overall.

The problem isn't with taxi operators either. I used to drive cab. I brought home, on average, about $5 a day. I worked 12 hour shifts, 6 days a week, and I made nowhere near enough money to support myself. Driving cab is not a glamorous job, and it doesn't really lead to great riches. Fares can't really be cut any lower.

The problem is that society won't recognize the broken economics of the "get a cab instead of driving drunk" argument. We moralize about drunk driving while opening bars in areas only accessible by car, then we act surprised when poor people drive their own cars there instead of tripling the cost of their drinking night by taking taxis. This is the inevitable outcome of our actions, so if we're serious about wanting to eliminate drunk driving, we're going to need a different approach. I don't know what that approach will be, but all I can say is that the current one obviously isn't working.

Or, we could, you know, just keep on pointing at the awful drunk drivers, talking about how awful they are. Surely that'll get them to change their ways.</sarcasm>

I'd argue that that's a bad deal, and not really a true sharing of costs.

Average fuel economy is 26.4mpg, according to Google. $3.65 per gallon is the current average gas price. That works out to $0.134 per mile, or only 24% of the US GSA's POV reimbursement rate. That implies that fuel accounts for only one quarter of the true cost of driving, and that you've got about $0.426 per mile of costs that must still be accounted for. You suggest oil and depreciation account for only $0.21 per mile, so that still leaves another $0.216 per mile in other costs. Brakes and tires are two more obvious consumables that I'm too lazy to estimate the per-mile cost of. Either way, I think charging as much as $0.56 per mile could easily be considered "sharing", not "selling", since that's what the US Government itself agrees is a fair rate to reimburse someone for putting miles on their own vehicle.

I agree, a 15% decrease in cost wouldn't do much when taking a cab adds 200% to the cost of getting drunk. Similarly, nobody would buy cars with airbags if the airbags added 200% to the cost of a car. I'd sooner not drink at bars, much like I'd sooner not buy a car.

No, I have money for neither, which is why I bought a two-tap kegerator for my apartment.

$20 can get me properly drunk on shitty beer at a shitty bar.
$20 can get a cabbie to take me most of the way home. Getting there (or getting my car the next day) is another $20.

So, to go out and get drunk, it's roughly 200% more expensive to do it responsibly (ignoring the inconvenience factor as well).
If you're on a budget, that's some serious motivation to drive drunk.
Perhaps you can consider the finer points of how your taxes are spent after a drunk driver kills your friend or family member.

I don't know where you're getting those numbers from, but the US Government currently reimburses for mileage put on privately owned vehicles to the tune of $0.56 per mile.

Are you even including anything more than fuel, or are you assuming that cars don't have any other consumables and don't lose value from miles driven?

I agree, that's unimaginably cheap. Over here they're over $1M.

I speak for myself and all of my close friends when I say that yes, price-sensitivity to cabs is the biggest reason people drink and drive.

If cabs were free, nobody I know would drink and drive. Not one of them. And I'm close friends with several people who have been convicted of DUI (and many more who haven't yet been caught).

I can't disagree with anything you've said.

However, to really get a complete picture regarding how effective gun control laws are at making people safer (safer in general, not just from guns), we'd also need a chart like the one your provide for gun crime, but for non-gun crime instead. If we could show that the drop in gun crime didn't coincide with a rise in non-gun crime, then we'd have an unassailable argument in favor of gun control.