The US needs to ban alcohol sales

[Travis_0004]

I saw this post from the CDC and was shocked.

Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years. The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006 were estimated at $223.5 billion, or $1.90.

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

One major cause of deaths is DUI which kills many innocent people.
Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 51 minutes.1 The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $59 billion.2

Thankfully, there are effective measures that can help prevent injuries and deaths from alcohol-impaired driving.

How big is the problem?
In 2013, 10,076 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

who will support me? Imagine if next year there were 0 deaths from Alcohol. It would save thousands of innocent lives.

[Skittles]

1. if you're trying to compare this to guns

it is a FAIL

[GGJohn]

5. Why is it a fail?

One is just as dead by alcohol as by a firearm.

[GGJohn]

28. LOL.

Am I really getting under your skin that badly?
There is the ignore button, I suggest you use it before you have a Myocardial Infarction.

[Major Nikon]

52. Because it's nothing more than gun nut dipshittery

I'm sure the OP thinks he's come up with some kind of brilliant never before seen gun nut argument which is totally not about guns. But this nonsense has been repeated over and over again, pretty much exclusively by the far right wing who have lost any claim to critical thinking skills by trying to float childish false equivalencies and are completely and totally shocked when someone makes the obvious bullshit call.

But if you like that sort of thing you can easily set your google to The US needs to ban doctors, and The US needs to ban cars for more of what passes for ammosexual intellectualism. Not surprisingly most of the links direct you to sites where other high level discussions are taking place like Where is the birth certificate?, They will have to pry it out of my cold dead hands, and Hurricane Joaquin is caused by gay marriage.

[Adrahil]

80. Please address the actual issue.

The numbers are correct. It's just that folks don't want to admit that they are willing to accept a lot of deaths to accommodate ONE activity, while using the specter of deaths to condemn another. If you think the issues are different, then explain why. I think there is an argument to be made there. I may not agree with it, but simply calling bullshit on something that is empirically PROVABLE is not a winning strategy.

[Major Nikon]

83. Jebus H. Christ on a pogo-stick

Do you really think the OP is attempting to address the "actual issue"? Please don't tell me you buy his half-fast claim that this isn't about teh guns.

[CajunBlazer]

129. True but we have common sense laws to keep Alcohol out of the hands of those.... .

Last edited Tue Oct 6, 2015, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)

who are most likely to drink and drive. For instance there a laws in every state to keep those under 21 from purchasing and consuming alcohol. If we pressed harder to enforce those laws fewer kids would end up killing someone with their car. We also take driving license away from those convicted of DUI and install breathalyzer in their cars to keep them from driving drunk. No one seems to mind these and other commonsense laws.

However, trying to enforce simple background checks in every instance where someone wants to buy a gun is near impossible.

Why is it that everyone is far taking common sense steps to keep people from getting killed with one deadly weapon, but we can't seem to do so for even more deadly weapons?

[GGJohn]

130. Good post.

I'm all for UBC being passed and signed into law, but with the present power bloc in DC, (repukes) I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

[yuiyoshida]

147. You never heard of Prohibition?

Chicago became notorious as a haven for prohibition dodgers during the time known as the Roaring Twenties. Prohibition generally came to an end in the late 1920s or early 1930s in most of North America and Europe, although a few locations continued prohibition for many more years.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition




It didn't work then either....When Alcoholic beverages were banned, people made their own, and liquor running created many notorious gang members including Al Capone, John Dillinger, Lucky Luciano and more. People who say to ban alcohol don't know much about their own history in this country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties

[GGJohn]

148. Thank you for that.

With the advent of 3D printers and the cost of them becoming more affordable, printing your own firearm will be very simple.
For those that want to ban firearms, that horse has left the barn and will never be returned.

[Travis_0004]

8. I didnt say anything about guns

Do you support a ban on alchol sales or not?

[Skittles]

9. of course not

that was a complete failure

and by the way, I am not a fucking idiot

[Travis_0004]

41. You still havent answered the question

Lets ban guns to save 30k lives. In the exact same bill we can ban alochol sales and save another 80k lives.

it would be historic. Do I have your support?

[Skittles]

42. WHO is talking about banning guns?

STOP LISTENING TO THE NRA

[former9thward]

75. Who?

Plenty of DU posters. Don't you read the posts?

[ProfessorGAC]

64. Here's A Question For You

Should we or should we not remove 80% of the restrictions already extant on liquor sales so those regulations compare favorably to those on guns?

Simple question based upon the fact that the restrictions on manufacture, transport, sales and distribution as well as acquisition and consumption of alcohol exceed those of guns in nearly every state.

[hack89]

79. Need a background check to buy booze?

Last edited Mon Oct 5, 2015, 06:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Can lose the right to purchase alcohol? Waiting period to buy alcohol?

[ProfessorGAC]

89. Perfect!

You didn't answer the question. That's what you kept chiming so i asked a question, and you didn't answer it.

Figures

[hack89]

91. You implied that alcohol is regulated much more than guns

I question that assertion. You certainly have not proven it and I doubt you can.

[beevul]

90. Asserted without evidence.

Simple question based upon the fact that the restrictions on manufacture, transport, sales and distribution as well as acquisition and consumption of alcohol exceed those of guns in nearly every state.

That's an unproven assertion, and one which I doubt very much is true.

[bowens43]

101. your argument is ridiculous. Seriously ridiculous.

[SoCalNative]

51. We tried that once here

All it managed to do was provide an opening for organized crime to gain a huge foothold in the US. It also managed to kill quite a few people from the bad bootleg varieties that were brewed up.

[HooptieWagon]

76. The same would happen banning guns.

Since the comparison was already brought up. Why would gun prohibition work any better than alchohol or drug prohibition?

[alarimer]

85. Because it's a fucking bullshit argument

Guns exist for no other reason than to KILL. And guns make it easier to kill someone you are having an argument with. Also a gun in the home is more likely to be used against someone who lives there, or to injure someone accidentally.

Your comparison to alcohol is bullshit. More people died due to Prohibition than to alcohol.

[HooptieWagon]

87. Incorrect.

Alchoholism was a serious problem, which is why Prohibition was attempted in order to address it. Although the motive was genuine, nobody can claim now that Prohibition was a successful response.
And drug overdoses have killed far more than the drug trade or war on drugs. Yet no one can claim the war on drugs has been successful...in fact, it's been a disaster.

[villager]

12. It's on their blood-stained 90's-era faxed sheet of NRA "talking points" they're still working with

Of course it's a fail!

[Skittles]

14. I know

what cracks me up is they think we are as stupid as gun humpers

[jen63]

110. Says it's "not about guns"

and in his next reply to you, brings up banning guns!

[honeylady]

70. We tried that already - Prohibition

What I think we should do is ban alcohol commercials from T.V. and radio. When watching Colbert or the Daily Show on Comedy Central, every other commercial is for booze and showing young people having a ball and being cool.
Banning the sale of alcohol is a stupid idea.

[Hoyt]

2. Might as well restrict access to your gunz, and ban your toting, first.

[GGJohn]

7. Why does that have to be first? eom.

[Hoyt]

49. Why not? Besides, if you gun fanciers were so "reponsible," as you claim, you'd voluntarily take

strong action against the proliferation of guns. Heck, do you really need 4 gun safes packed with guns and ammo to deal with coyotes, bobcats, etc., as you claim?

[Travis_0004]

16. would you support a ban on both?

[Skittles]

20. who is talking about banning guns?

they want to make them HARDER TO GET

that "gun grabber" thing is a SYMPTOM OF PARANOIA

[GGJohn]

30. There are plenty here who are suggesting just such a ban. eom.

[Hoyt]

50. Not really, a gun or two at home is fine with me. Your 4 gun safes full of guns and ammo

is way over the line, as is your toting on city streets.

[smirkymonkey]

68. I know, if that alone isn't enough to suggest that most of them are unbalanced.

[Skittles]

72. it is pathetic

seriously

[BlueJazz]

3. Lets keep the alcohol and ban cars.

[Egnever]

22. I like that idea

I think google is working on a compromise...

[bemildred]

27. +1. nt

[cheapdate]

29. Right on!

[Cheese Sandwich]

109. +1

[irisblue]

4. Srsly?

SRSLY? the fail is strong in this analogy

[GGJohn]

10. Why?

So one is less dead in an alcohol related event as opposed to a firearm death?

[irisblue]

43. red herring fallacy in OP

I have enjoyed some of your posts on other topics, but I will not argue this topic with you.

[GGJohn]

47. Fair enough.

And thank you for being honest, it's a refreshing change, on both sides of this debate.

[jack_krass]

24. Why?

Because you said so?

[Skittles]

26. another live one

they come out of the woodwork at night

[irisblue]

44. Ad hominem

Bye

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. We tried that once...remember Prohibition? It failed. n/t

[Travis_0004]

13. maybe we could try again

Or do you think a ban wouldnt work, and people would still find a way to access alcohol?

[Skittles]

17. SEE?

WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT MASS MURDERS! THEY WILL HAPPEN ANYWAYS!!!

YOU'RE NOT FOOLING ANYONE

[lancer78]

139. they will happen

The deadliest school massacre occurred without a single gun being used.

[Skittles]

140. yet another NRA talking point

[Stuart G]

149. Here is a link to the deadlest school massacre, Bath School Disaster..1927

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

so....I learned something new on this thread...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

31. I know people will find a way--Even I would!

It is not a good idea.

[Kath1]

54. I know I would.

If they would finally wake up an legalize marijuana it wouldn't be so bad. I grew up around alcoholics and have first-hand experience with all of violence and pain they cause. Spent a lot of time with pot smokers and they just, generally, mellow out, relax and have a nice time.

[GGJohn]

15. You're right CalifornisPeggy,

as would a prohibition on firearms.
And I'm not saying you advocate a prohibition against firearms, just pointing out that banning guns would have the same effect as banning alcohol.

[Downwinder]

11. Prohibition works so well.

[graegoyle]

18. There is fairly strong regulation. Peoople are still very stupid.

The law states: Must be 21 years old; drinking and driving is a crime (by law, but we all know how the law is and is not applied); a bartender can sometimes be liable for serving persons.

Do any of those legal responsibilities have any analog with guns?

[Adrahil]

81. Yes.

You must be 18 to buy a gun (21 for handguns in some jurisdictions)

You must be able to pass a background check if you buy a gun from a dealer (I think background checks should be extended to all sales, including private sales).

A gun dealer can be held legally liable for selling a gun to ineligible persons. And yes, that does happen. A local shop was busted by the BATFE and the owner prosecuted for knowingly selling guns to ineligible persons and falsifying the records.

In my state, you must have a firearms permit to carry a gun outside your own, or place of business. Even if you only go to the range, you must have a permit.

There are many more rules regarding guns. I'm not saying we couldn't use some more, but the idea that guns are unregulated is incorrect.

[bemildred]

19. I would support booze being treated like tobacco.

No advertising, no marketing. A good approach for all drugs really, don't prohibit the drug, prohibit the marketing and exorbitant profit from the drug.

[bemildred]

25. And now that I think about it, I think that would be excellent for guns too: no marketing.

You can make them and sell them but you can't advertise them, we have already done that for tobacco and I think that is how cannabis is going to wind up too eventually. And the rationale would be the same, public health and safety, and that ought not transgress the 2nd, the challenge will be based on the 1st, "free speech".

[Egnever]

32. I like that Idea as well

Some good ones in this thread.

[bemildred]

37. Thank you.

I'm not against guns, but we've got to stop associating them with booze and women at least, and stop scaring people who don't need them into buying them for "protection". Stop promoting them. That I think we can do. It's not everything, but it's something. It would get better.

[geomon666]

21. We should ban guns first.

That way a drunken fight won't be as lethal.

[kelly1mm]

35. Or you could ban alcohol first and have NO drunken fights! nt

[geomon666]

36. There's nothing wrong with a good drunken fight.

As long as you keep weapons out of it. That's just my personal feeling though.

[Travis_0004]

38. Fights are not the problem

Its the 10k DUI deaths and 80k alcohol deaths.

My boxing coach says I cant fight worth a damn when Im sober, so I dont want to get into a drunken fight.

[geomon666]

40. Yes the DUI deaths are a problem

One that I believe will be solved by technology eventually. Smart cars, etc.

[Straw Man]

56. Really?

There's nothing wrong with a good drunken fight.

As long as you keep weapons out of it. That's just my personal feeling though.

An acquaintance of mine was killed in a "good drunken fight" by a kick to the head. No weapons were involved.

[geomon666]

59. I'm sorry to hear that.

I still think a fight without weapons would be preferable to one with.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. More people are killed by unarmed assailants than one's armed with SS/semi rifles.

[geomon666]

118. Probably, I wouldn't know.

I just know that it's far too easy to kill someone with a gun than without.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

120. That's why, in addition to sports, they're used for hunting and self-defense.

[geomon666]

121. Of course

But humans have hunted without guns for thousands of years. Same for self defense.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

135. For thousands of years the world was ruled by the physically superior.

The stronger, faster, more agile. It's what allowed the patriarchy and imperialism to endure. Is that the world you want to go back to?

[geomon666]

138. I don't see a distinction between who ruled then and who rules now.

And having guns around isn't going to change it either.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

143. Just because you don't (want to) see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Why do you think women haven't entered the police and military until the modern era?

[geomon666]

144. What does that have to do with guns today?

And the problems we face as a society because of them?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

145. The problem isn't peaceable people but that's all grabbers fixate upon.

Women, the elderly and infirm cannot compete in physical struggles. To dismiss guns as a legitimate form of self-defense is to consign the disadvantaged to predations of those who are physically stronger. Why do you think we have VAWA?

[geomon666]

146. There are other legitimate forms of self defense.

Never said guns weren't legitimate. I simply don't believe we can be trusted with them any more. Maybe in the future.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

150. 1) While true, there are other legitimate forms of defense

what you think is appropriate is merely subjective. "This makes me squeamish so no one should be allowed to use it" is not a basis for law.

2) It's not just a matter of legitimate forms of defense, practicality is the big consideration. There is no reason think a pool noodle would not be a legitimate tool for defense. However, it's efficacy is another matter altogether. Someone confronted by a violent attacker needs the attack stopped immediately. That means either the attacker realizes they could die or they suffer injuries so severe and so suddenly that it denies them the capacity to continue their assault.

3) If you truly feel a substantial portion of the population is a threat why would you disarm those who would be preyed upon by these threats? Is there some form of passive-aggressive moral instruction you imagine yourself imposing upon the benighted masses? "Just sit there and think about what some of you have done -- even if 'sit there' means being robbed rape and murdered with impunity."

[geomon666]

157. I don't think anyone here is seriously considering

using a pool noodle as a viable form of defense against an attack.

I don't know what the stats are for gun owners stopping an attack. Not even sure if anyone actually keeps track of that. I do know that on a personal level, I'm really sick and tired of watching kids and young adults get slaughtered by guns by the dozen at a time. I also know that adding more guns to the situation hasn't been helping. So I say give the opposite a try. Let's take everybody's gun away and see what happens.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

158. Is it the deaths, period, regardless of method or does only the method matter?

[geomon666]

160. I'm not sure what you're trying to ask me.

Would these people still be dead if it weren't for the guns? Probably not. I'd like to think most of these people would still be alive if this guy had chose to attack this school with a knife, or even a crossbow or something like that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

161. What if they died in a car accident after being hit by a drunk?

[geomon666]

162. Ok? Again I'm not sure what you're asking me.

Are you saying that I don't think death by a drunk driver matters?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

163. I'm curious to know

why prohibition for deaths caused by X is believed to be a viable strategy but prohibition for deaths cause by Y is not.

[geomon666]

164. Someone asked me that before.

Would I give up alcohol if it meant saving lives? Hell yes I would. I'm no puritan. I don't consider alcohol to be evil or that nonsense. But I do believe that eventually, and perhaps sooner than we think, technology will solve the problem of drunk drivers. Most likely in the form of smart cars.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

165. You don't get to say, "I'd give that up so everyone else has to as well." That's not how

society and rights work.

Moreover, if you do not drive drunk your swearing off of alcohol does absolutely nothing to prevent drunk driving deaths. It is a useless and self-congratulatory gesture devoid of any practical value. And doing so as a pretext to deprive someone else who also would never drive drunk of alcohol is nothing more than imposing your morality upon them with similar useless effect.

Carry that to the right to defend one's self by the most effective means available and you have gun control. But you can't even say you swear off of guns and so others must as well. Gun control works -- as all laws must -- under threat of force. Gun control relies on lots of guns and an implicit threat of violence by those who enforce the law. Gun control advocates have other people carry the guns for them.

Gun control tells every law-abiding person -- the father defending his family from a burglar, the store owner being robbed, the woman who works late at night, the elderly retiree on a fixed income in the low-rent side of town -- that if they cannot contend with their attackers in a physical confrontation then they are acceptable casualties and if they do defend themselves with a gun then people with guns will take them to prison.

I simply cannot wrap my head around that line of thinking let alone ascribe noble intentions to it.

[geomon666]

170. So you're saying all gun control is bad?

If true, I can't get my head around that. And just to play devil's advocate, every single law we have in this country, was from someone imposing their morality upon the rest of us. That's not really an argument.

[uppityperson]

33. Because a few deaths at a time are not as bad as many at one time.

For real though, prohibition doesn't work. More responsible drinking would help, societal changes, educate young people in a way that will actually make an impact.

[GGJohn]

48. Wow!!!

Seriously, I've got to say that you're just as harsh on gun control extremists as gun rights extremists.
You are one of the very few that are honest about this contentious issue on DU.
Give yourself a very well deserved pat on the back.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

94. "Because a few deaths at a time are not as bad as many at one time."

Thought experiment --

Because a few rapes at a time are not as bad as many at one time.

Because a few child beatings at a time are not as bad as many at one time.

Because a few domestic assaults at a time are not as bad as many at one time.

Nope. Still sounds really dumb. The following, however, does not sound dumb. In fact, it sounds pretty salient and well-considered --

For real though, prohibition doesn't work. More responsible drinking would help, societal changes, educate young people in a way that will actually make an impact.

RKBA advocates have been saying this about gun ownership for some time now.

[uppityperson]

106. I hope you realize that what I meant is that is how it is perceived by too many, including

the OMG mass media OMG.

For me, it all goes back to figuring out why people act as they do, and what can be done to minimize the hurtful actions by changing the reason they do it, why they think it is an ok action to hurt others.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

115. Fair 'nuff. As I noted in my post, the latter part of your post was spot on.

[madville]

34. Saves Social Security a bunch of money

Most drinkers work, if they die before collecting a decade or two of OASDI benefits then it makes the program more solvent.

[Downwinder]

39. That is just trading OA for SDI.

[laundry_queen]

45. Stupid analogy

no one has a physical dependence on guns. No one has a genetic predisposition to being addicted to guns. Fail.

[Iggo]

46. Yes, because alcohol is designed to kill, and when used correctly, it kills.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. Guns have a practical purpose, recreational drinking does not.

[Iggo]

102. That's wonderful news.

Still, analogy fail.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

114. It's only news to the willfully ignorant and no one has yet to show how the analogy fails.

[hughee99]

123. So your problem isn't the deaths, it's the product? n/t

[Initech]

53. Tried that already, didn't work.

[ladyVet]

55. Did you not learn about Prohibition in school?

All that did is kill people with bad hooch, and let organized crime grow into a nation-wide problem.

And, how has that "war on drugs" worked out? If the aim was to put lots of people in prison, then I guess it's going gangbusters. (<----see what I did there?) Costs lots of tax money, and now the drug cartels are a big issue, but hey, let's be happy, because a pot smoker is taken down.

Abortion used to be illegal, but people still got them, because there's always someone willing to provide them. Back alleys and coat hangers come to mind? Of course, rich women could just take a month or so in Europe.

Lots of people die for lots of reasons. Always have. I think we have more of a problem with society as a whole than with guns. Guns are just the medium used when something goes wrong with how people think. Get rid of guns, and people will still buy them. There's always a way, when someone wants something. Or they'll use a knife, or a machete, or make a bomb, or use poison gas.

Maybe we could do something about the untreated mental illness that plagues so many people. If they could afford to get real, effective treatment, that might go a long way towards stopping some of these killings. But the thing is, people are free to not go to the doctor. Maybe we should make that illegal?

[nomorenomore08]

57. Alcohol is already more regulated than firearms. Equalizing the two would be fine with me.

Full disclosure, I enjoy drinking somewhat regularly, and I would probably never own a gun, but I have no problem with somebody else owning one - provided they're not a violent felon, or severely mentally ill.

[oneshooter]

69. Firearms are the most heavely regulated consumer product in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_the_United_States

http://www.ttb.gov/pdf/ttbp51008_laws_regs_act052007.pdf

http://www.fedcoplaw.com/html/federal_firearms_laws.html

[Depaysement]

58. Assuming the OP is intended as a gun analogy

People can't really use alcohol to kill can they? No one really says "I want to go on a killing spree, so I'll just drink and drive."

I think that is what people mean by false equivalency.

[JDPriestly]

60. And when alcohol and guns are mixed, the outcome is also just horrible.

Lots of domestic violence involves that combination.

[PowerToThePeople]

61. People go to jail and lose their license for DUI

I would like to see the same for bringing a gun into public spaces, go to jail and lose your guns.

Let's start with that.

[rufus dog]

88. Let's go with that

And if a person gets a DUI then he must surrender all of his guns for three years.

Which would mean all guns would need to be registered. Get caught with an unregistered one, jail time.

Because just like driving it is a privilege not a right.

Unless you are part of a well regulated militia, and that definition can be clarified, how about two year training, one weekend a month, one full month a year. Instead of shooting at cans the gun fanciers can get themselves in shape, pass a standard physical test, and practice shooting and gun safety.

Seems like a win/win. The gun fanciers get to shoot one weekend per month, get in shape, and become better prepared to assist in national emergencies.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

100. "that definition can be clarified"

Title 10 USC, Section 311

[ret5hd]

62. The US needs to legalize "Liquor Shows".

I could set up a booth as a private liquor owner and sell my stock of privately owned liquor to anybody!

[Warren DeMontague]

63. obvious bad analogy is obvious

[Major Nikon]

99. Obviously

-- Department of Redundancy Department

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Alcohol is highly regulated. I assume you

are in favor of effective gun regulation as well, right?

[Paladin]

66. These worn-out, inane, deflection maneuvers aren't working any more.

Would appreciate your passing the word to your fellow Gun Enthusiasts.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

97. How is the analogy not apt?

[Paladin]

103. We don't need analogies. We need solutions. (nt)

[cleanhippie]

108. Agreed. What's yours?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

113. In other words it's an apt analogy and so is the futility of gun prohibition as a solution.

[B Calm]

67. Next thing it will be is outlawing marijuana.

[GoneOffShore]

71. Stop comparing apples to sheep.

[LostOne4Ever]

73. Can alcohol be used to commit mass murder? nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. Over-consumption of alcohol kills 4300 underaged drinkers every year.

That's the same as more than the 4 times the number of children killed at Sandy Hook dying each and every week without pause.

[truebluegreen]

104. Reading comprehension is key: "commit"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

112. The only distinction you're drawing is: Who is acting upon whom.

A distinction without a difference if grabberz are as into saving lives as much as they pretend.

[LostOne4Ever]

127. How many times has someone killed 10+people by simply bring a bottle of wine into a room w/ them?

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Besides, putting a single glass of wine in your mouth and consuming it won't kill you. Putting a single gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger will.

Comparing the two is silly.[/font]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

134. You can't kill people by simply bringing a gun into a room. It requires an act of will.

Guns do not suddenly spring to life and begin killing people.

Besides, putting a single glass of wine in your mouth and consuming it won't kill you. Putting a single gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger will.

Comparing the two is silly.

Parking a car on a downslope, putting it in neutral and lying down in its path can kill you. Wrapping your head in bacon and sticking it into a lion's mouth can kill you. Trying to kiss a lawn mower while the blade is spinning can kill you. In fact, not using a lot of things as they're not intended can kill you. What's your point?

[Darb]

152. But can you kill ten people with that bottle of wine? Doubt it.

It's a bullshit analogy by a gun fetishist.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

155. Drunk drivers can kill multiple people in a single accident and

and they kill more people each year.

It's a BS evasion by a control fetishist.

[Darb]

156. Not more people on purpose.

"I have had enough, I am going to take my fifth of scotch and slam it and get in a car and drive it to a school."

Doesn't seem the same. Does eating a high sugar diet kill a lot of people? Let's ban sugar.

Try being reasonable. Why do people need to legally possess a semi-auto assault rifle with a banana clip capable a dispersing many, many rounds very, very quickly? What is that tool used for again? Just curious.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

159. You think you can abrogate rights of the innocent based on the motives of bad actors?

That, some how, someone killed unintentionally by a drunk is less dead than someone killed intentionally by a deranged maniac?

Try being reasonable. Why do people need to legally possess a semi-auto assault rifle with a banana clip capable a dispersing many, many rounds very, very quickly? What is that tool used for again? Just curious.

You tell me.

[JonathanRackham]

132. Actually yes nt

Nt

[Rex]

74. I love how the guy's dad pissed off gun humpers with his comment!

Now if only they would all go off and live on some other planet, us peaceful folks would like it a lot better.

[backscatter712]

77. Analogy fail... n/t

[ancianita]

78. Once the legal banning of legal intoxicant starts, governmental banning becomes structural.

The minority, oligarchal government of South Africa sustained its oppressions through banning, from reading and distributing dissent literature to banning any airport entry of those who even wrote in support of majority rule of the country. Alcohol, books, where people could congregate or assemble, everything eventually got banned. Everyone participating in protest, or even carrying literature against the South African government was jailed, repeatedly.

So, no, we don't want to legalize banning, either through legislation or through the courts.

Saving lives begins with setting societal conditions that don't frustrate, beat down and take people into states of despair. One might try serving limits, which already exist through dram laws. But local limits is as far as any idea to restrain people should go.

[hack89]

82. It's not about the deaths. It's about the gunz. nt

[alarimer]

84. Prohibition led to organized crime and lots and lots of deaths due to poisoning.

Read the Poisoner's Handbook. It details many of the issues with Prohibition due to the sale of denatured alcohol in lieu of the real thing.

Face it, people will find a way to get high or buzzed. That is a part of human history and nature.

It is not comparable to guns because guns are intended for one purpose: to KILL.

[Travis_0004]

105. Yet alochol kills 3 times the amount of people as guns

[Algernon Moncrieff]

169. Depends who you ask, and there is some Venn diagram overlap

For example: Dick Cheney was drinking beer, and then shot his hunting buddy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

116. The extent at which Prohibitionists were willing to impose their moral crusade --

The Chemist's War

The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences.

Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html

Considering the eliminationist rhetoric that arises from many on DU who would ban guns there's no reason to believe another such atrocity wouldn't be perpetrated upon the American people.

It is not comparable to guns because guns are intended for one purpose: to KILL.

Is killing food to feed the family a bad thing? Is killing or threatening to kill violent criminals a bad thing? What about target shooting sports?

[rbrnmw]

86. Really?

I assume this is about guns. As soon as someone walks into a public place and takes out a bunch of people with a bottle of Jack Daniels we can have that discussion.

[KamaAina]

93. Been there, done that,

got the organized crime T-shirt.

[cwydro]

95. Nah, they tried that.

It didn't work.

Nor will it work with guns, since we all know what this OP is about.

[LittleBlue]

107. Nobody can actually explain what is wrong with this analogy

You can claim this analogy is faulty but can't explain why. The answer is quite simple: the analogy is too effective.

On one hand, alcohol is a poison that kills far more people in the US than guns. So why is anyone discussing gun bans and not alcohol bans? The answer is obviously that we will tolerate death from some things, often activities in which we engage, but not others.

[Bonx]

111. but.. GUN OUTRAGE !!!!!!

/argument

[Eleanors38]

117. Marijuana is prohibited in Texas. Can't find ANY!!

[beevul]

119. It is a version of this, LittleBlue.

Though I'm no longer sure if life is imitating art, or art is imitating life.

[Darb]

154. I can, it's easy for sane people, gun fetishists, not so much.

Of course the gun fetish crowd always relies on "they want to take away my guns", crybaby shit. But reality is we would like them regulated so that crazy people cannot get very, very powerful weapons capable of killing many, many people at a time.

And before you get all fetishy on me, by powerful, I don't mean caliber, so shove your nomenclature up your arse. I mean rifles and handguns capable of firing many rounds (more than six), very quickly (semi-auto), without bothering to reload. Get it? You figure out which I am talking about from that bit of info.

If you are so aim impaired that it takes you 30 shots to hit something so therefore you need one of those types of guns, you can keep it at the local "idiot proof" gun range, where you can go and shoot many thousands of rounds, like a kook, whenever you please. I am sure that most rational shooters would love to have the kooks cordoned off. Generally, legitimate hunters do not need 30 shots to kill anything. Mostly, when you miss, the game is gone. Two, three, maybe one more. Then reload. If you must. Geez. And go practice a bit at the skeet range.

Now if we compare that to alcohol, if a very powerful drink comes along that is a threat to consumers, we pretty much ban it. I think it just happened not long ago with some kind of high alcohol drink that nobody knew was so strong and it knocked you on your arse. If the alcohol is too strong, it is illegal. Too strong meaning, too dangerous to ingest.

Now think about it logically, nobody can walk into a house with a bottle of wine and kill the whole party with it. It is about being reasonable, which gun fetishists plainly never are. Does alcohol lead to many deaths? Yeah, so does cholesterol. And smoking. And air pollution. Want to go down that road?

Try to consider the degree to which your hobby makes you unreasonable in civil society.

[rockfordfile]

122. This is really dumb.

This is really dumb. This is something you would see on Fox News.

[dumbcat]

124. I think you have

pretty well made your point, at least among rational minds.

[ileus]

125. How folks drink that bitter crap is beyond me.

[Skittles]

141. the NRA tells them it TASTES GOOD

[Runningdawg]

126. Prohibition

is never the answer. It didn't work with alcohol the first time.
Hows that "just say no" been working out with drugs?

[WDIM]

128. People die everyday. Why is everyone so concerned with how?

Why dont we start with stopping war. That should be priority one in stopping needless deaths of innocent lives.

[JonathanRackham]

131. Conceptions

Alcohol is responsible for a lot of unplanned pregnancies as well.

[Township75]

133. Because we want booze so we will accept deaths related to it, but we don't want guns so we won'

won't tolerate deaths related to them.

If you have no desire for a gun, then what do you care if they are banned...but booze...BOOZE! People can die left and right from it and no one is gonna take away my booze!

[Zorra]

136. How'd it work out the last time the US did that? nt

[hatrack]

137. This post doesn't even rise the the level of "pathetic".

Bye now.

[Nevernose]

142. We have evidence for this.

Nothing is a hundred percent, of course, but if you look at the industrialized world, prohibition of drugs and alcohol doesn't work very well, and yet prohibition/serious control of firearms does.

Could it be that the two things aren't all that similar?

(I haven't seen a lawn dart in thirty years...)

[Orrex]

151. Did you read the CDC's report on the underlying causes of gun violence?

Oh, right. Thanks to the continued evidence of the NRA's servile GOP, there is no report.


Tell you what: when the number of alcohol murders and suicides rises to the level of gun murders and suicides, we can revisit this issue. Not that you mentioned anything about guns, of course.

To clarify: I'm asking about murders and suicides specifically resulting from alcohol use; that is, when alcohol was used directly as the murder weapon or as the means of committing suicide.

Let me know when you have those figures. Thanks!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

166. From the CDC --

How big is the problem?

•In 2013, 10,076 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1

•Of the 1,149 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2013, 200 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.1

•Of the 200 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2013, over half (121) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.1

•In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.4

http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

[kcr]

153. You must be new at this. It's bathtubs. n/t

[Taitertots]

167. But, but , but... people on DU love alcohol

The death toll is irrelevant to them.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

168. We tried that. It led to a serious gun problem. Then congress banned automatic weapons.