It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gun Control Advocates: Do you want to ban alcoholic beverages b/c some people drink and drive?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Although there are approximately 75,000 alcohol related deaths in the US each year approximately 11,000 of those deaths are from drinking and driving. Do the anti-gun advocates who drink suggest that we should ban alcoholic beverages because some people drink and drive and are a real risk of killing others on the highway (even if that was not their intention)? I know that there are 50,000~ deaths caused by traffic accidents but no one is advocating banning cars and trucks because they are so critical to our mode of life. There are probably 13,000~ murders by firearms each year (not sure how many of those are illegally owned guns) and probably 17,000~ gun suicides (they could use another method if necessary) and just approximately 1000 accidental firearms deaths each year (some of them may be suicides as well). But what is not commonly reported is the legitimate use of a firearm to stop or prevent a crime (gun not being fired in over 90% of the time)....this happens over 1 million times per year in the US. What benefit is there to drinking and driving to equal the use of firearms to protect oneself or deter a crime? None, ergo the gun control advocates should consider a revisit of Prohibition so that alcohol is not available to those who drink and drive and thus endanger all of us. What? You mean they can smuggle it in or make their own? Hmmm.




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Of course they don't, because they have a childish fear of an inanimate object and fear others having the inanimate object.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 

I think you nailed it there. They can focus their "fear" on an inanimate object versus human behavior per se. However, it is the behavior that kills people tho not the "object" used.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


You might not like my answer. I understand the point you are making, but I have to say, I would like to see alcohol banned and replaced with a natural herb that we're not allowed to talk about because it's considered illegal in the United States and assuming this website was created by Americans , they have to set that boundary.

I say this because I have seen the damage that alcoholism causes and how it destroys people. I see people under it's influence make some of the most insane choices one could ever make. It's all around bad. Where I live, well, lets just say drinking is a big thing because that's all there is for adults to do here. Drink, watch football , work and hunt. That's it. So maybe that experience has prejudiced my opinion, but I can't stand abusers of alcohol.


.......and I have a problem with the guns.


edit on 9-8-2012 by skepticconwatcher because: to add. ".......and I have a problem with the guns."



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by skepticconwatcher
 

Alcoholism is a debilitating problem. I have seen what it can do to people and guns are very dangerous as well but that is not the point. The point is that they will not ban alcohol (even allowing for individuals to make the decision to get drunk and become alcoholics as long as they do it at home) just because drinking and driving kills 11,000 people a year in the US (out of the nearly 50,000 who die each year from traffic accidents). But I appreciate your point as anything dangerous to the public should be a part of the debate. But the key from my reference point is to frame that potential danger with the potential benefit.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 

Would Teddy Kennedy (a former alcoholic and second degree murderer by drinking and driving if not premeditated) who also supported gun bans have favored a ban on alcoholic beverages? It does seem like there are a lot of functional alcoholics in Congress (hard work I know but some have their own drivers). BTW, I dont hear Mayor Bloomberg suggesting the banning of beer sales in large cups at bars or ball parks in NYC...it is not on their agenda but guns (and food control) are.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
the best post i saw on any website thread following the Aurora shooting was this, Yesterday 65 million people didn't kill anyone. I'm assuming that is something to do with registered gun owners, not being from the US that's my guess.
I will say though that banning guns hasn't exactly worked in the UK, after all it is now illegal to own even a hand gun, and our crime rate has fallen through the floor because of this. We no longer have banks and security vans being held up or gang bangers running round town protecting their patch etc.
I'm being sarcastic if no one has realised
edit on 15/09/2011 by FFS4000 because: forgot to bold the statement



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Where I live, well, lets just say drinking is a big thing because that's all there is for adults to do here. Drink, watch football , work and hunt. That's it.


edit on 9-8-2012 by skepticconwatcher because: to add. ".......and I have a problem with the guns."


With the exception to the work part, I would say that you've died and gone to my version of heaven.


But where's the sex part?
edit on 9-8-2012 by TDawgRex because: CRAP! My foods burning!



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Preface: Still on the fence about 2nd amendment issues, and I despise alcohol.

Alcohol was banned remember? The U.S. crime rate rose 24% during prohibition.
library.thinkquest.org...



Prohibition never works. Didn't work with alcohol, wouldn't work with guns, currently does not work with drugs. Even though I think alcohol causes a lot of problems, we already know what happens when you tell people they can't have it.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Thank you, Citizen, for a refreshing dose of perspective.

I've observed that the notion of "banning" something is a delusion. The Samurai, for example, were not happy with the introduction of guns in feudal Japan. Too bad. Sharia law forbids all intoxicants, so Muslims don't grow poppies, right? U.S. Drug War. How's that going?

We've got problems and we can't do anything to mitigate them without a sense of perspective.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroReady
 

Yes you are right. 1) People want what they can not have (demand increased by the scarcity of supply) and 2) People will have to access that supply from the "black market" (criminal underground) where contact with the criminal element could foster a general increase in crime (especially in a Depression).



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Yeah seems a lot of people have problems with guns and their solution 100% of the time is to call the guys with more guns.

There is logic working for you golf clap for those who support outsourcing of personal security.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
What are you, a fascist or something? Drinking alcohol is a personal choice, and must not be abridged or infringed upon!

How dare you even suggest that there's a comparison between something that's a right and something that's a choice!

/TOA



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 
You can't fight tyrrany with a 15 year old bottle of scotch.

Well, you can, but the only thing is you won't feel anything when they shoot you.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Yeah seems a lot of people have problems with guns and their solution 100% of the time is to call the guys with more guns.

There is logic working for you golf clap for those who support outsourcing of personal security.


Next time I see a swerving drunk I'll call up somebody who I know is more drunk.

That way we can be consistent with the problem -> reaction.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Your premise failed at the headline...

Gun Control Advocates: Do you want to ban alcoholic beverages b/c some people drink and drive?,

"Control" does not equal "ban".

I do not want to "ban" alcohol...I do want to control it and don't want to allow children to drink or folks that have a history of drunk driving being able to drive.

Control vs. Ban...

I don't want to ban guns...I own guns...I do want to control them and not allow schitzophrenics like Jared Laughner or psychotics like the Colorado shooter or white supremists with a felony record like the WI shooter to be able to buy guns and ammo without any screening.
edit on 9-8-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I agree somewhat with your post, but the logic is semi-flawed.

You are right in the fact that control, and ban are different actions. Good catch in the title.

Your plan would be to control guns, and deny guns to certain people who have been "diagnosed" as crazy. Hmm.
Would that not anger the person who is denied guns? Seems to me that that person would be enraged at that fact, and go a different route to obtain a gun, and then get back at society with that gun, because he is labelled mentally unfit to own a gun, even if for self defense or to simply shoot a gun and learn how they work. (You know, some people ACTUALLY think learning things helps, crazy, I know) It's all about how you use what you learn.

The problem hear starts with our society and how we like to label people and neatly stack them into piles where everyone is the same and never differs.

People aren't books. People aren't objects. Stop the labeling bull****. That does nothing but create undesired emotions and causes people to act irrationally. Yeah sure, there are crazy people with crazy thought patterns, some even unfit to join the world we have fabricated (daily jobs for paper with ink on it, etc.), but that doesn't give ANYONE the right to start lumping people into a group. Once you start labeling people, you might get stuck in that thought process because it's easy to tell ourselves why something happened, based on the fact that you think that person belongs in this group, or that group.

People aren't the same. Our thought patterns are brought on by electrochemical signals from the chemical makeup of our bodies. How one would think people fit into a certain group because they did this and that, and they took this test that showed this and that.. it goes on forever. It's like a loop 80 light years wide, traveling at 80mph.
Maybe that "insane guy" has a real need for a gun. Maybe he got robbed and wants to prevent that. Or he wants to experience hunting. THe key here is to give proper gun training, and make shooting anyone else a crime that doesn't end in the death penalty, but instead make them do hard ass work 16-18 hours a day for the rest of his life, it doesn't matter where, as long as that person ends up in jail after the work period.


Gun control could be a beautiful thing. Maybe one day we can achieve a world everyone wants to be a part of, and contribute to other's lives in a beneficial way. I'll be doing that till it all comes together, and will continue that way of living and thinking after that.

Good day to all.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join