Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
KCitons

USA DUI Deaths (and how they relate to other things)

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Does that make it better?

My point was that we have clear laws on who is allowed to purchase alcohol. That doesn't seem to be stopping underage drinking. (or deaths). It was also pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that kids were dying by the hands of other kids with guns. This is also true when it comes to alcohol. 

There is discussion in the other thread about active shooter training at schools. And how traumatic it is for the students. Yet, there have been similar training around drunk driving at schools as well, where they show a mangled car or even drop a car from a crane to simulate the damage caused by impact. Isn't this traumatic as well? Is it having any effect?

No one believes laws stop the crime. Laws exist to deter and reduce the crime. 

Given our gun problem is multiple times worse than other countries that have stricter gun laws, we could deter and reduce our gun problem with stricter gun laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

No one believes laws stop the crime. Laws exist to deter and reduce the crime. 

Given our gun problem is multiple times worse than other countries that have stricter gun laws, we could deter and reduce our gun problem with stricter gun laws. 

Based on the number of guns in this country vs the number of firearm deaths, the only way you can reduce the number of deaths is to reduce the number of guns. That will only happen through bans, not increased vetting and training. If we currently have 10 deaths per 100k people. Doesn't that number remain the same as long as the number of guns remains the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Based on the number of guns in this country vs the number of firearm deaths, the only way you can reduce the number of deaths is to reduce the number of guns. That will only happen through bans, not increased vetting and training. If we currently have 10 deaths per 100k people. Doesn't that number remain the same as long as the number of guns remains the same?

Half the guns in the world exist in the US, despite us only having 4% of the population. So yes, our situation is in the very extreme definition of the word "ridiculous". While a ban that requires the populace to disarm themselves would take the per capita gun ratio in this country down to the rest of the world quickly, that's not a pragmatic approach. A pragmatic approach is to put a bottleneck on market for gun sales and manufacturing. Over time the existing inventory of guns will become old and no longer useful, and they won't be anywhere as easy to replace given the bottleneck. So overtime we can reduce the inventory in this country down to the rest of the world. While this is a pragmatic solution, two entities will be pissed: 1) gun manufacturers: and 2) gun extremists. To be honest, I don't give #### about either of those entities. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Half the guns in the world exist in the US, despite us only having 4% of the population. So yes, our situation is in the very extreme definition of the word "ridiculous". While a ban that requires the populace to disarm themselves would take the per capita gun ratio in this country down to the rest of the world quickly, that's not a pragmatic approach. A pragmatic approach is to put a bottleneck on market for gun sales and manufacturing. Over time the existing inventory of guns will become old and no longer useful, and they won't be anywhere as easy to replace given the bottleneck. So overtime we can reduce the inventory in this country down to the rest of the world. While this is a pragmatic solution, two entities will be pissed: 1) gun manufacturers: and 2) gun extremists. To be honest, I don't give #### about either of those entities. 

I think you're overestimating the durability of guns. I don't know where we would find statistics, but the guns that were made in the early 1900's are still just as functional. There is a century of firearms that still work just as well as they did the day they were manufactured. My first deer rifle (and one I still own) is a WWII Mauser. We do know that population growth is slowing in the U.S. So the number of guns per capita is not likely to change from where it is today. Reduction in firearms will only occur through confiscation and gun buybacks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KCitons said:

1. But they don't. There's no rally. There's no main stream media coverage of dui deaths. You could want it. But, do you do anything to make those changes happen. Do you call or write your local representatives asking for tougher laws? How many have done so asking for tougher gun laws?

2. Cop out answer. You've read enough of the gun thread to know the responses. 

3. I don't shoot up schools with my guns. Yet, all gun owners are going to feel the effects of gun regulations because of those that do commit mass shootings. Do all alcohol drinkers feel the effects of alcohol regulations due to those that kill someone by drinking and driving? 

1.  No, but I am not that politically active in many regards if you are using writing my representatives as a measuring stick.  I doubt many are.  You don't seem to like the answer, but there is a bigger culture of booze in our country as far as population and corporate sponsorship that I would get why there isn't mainstream coverage of the evil that is alcohol.   I think that has a bit to do with it - it's hard to talk about booze ban when you are cutting to Coors and Jim Beam commercials a couple times a program.  

2.  Not a cop out answer - you want me to start answering for the other posters now?

3.  You keep trying to related these two topics as though they are a direct correlation and it's not the case.  I don't know why that is so hard.    Using the proposals that you have set out, I would argue that gun owners wouldn't be effected all that much.  They can still defend, hunt, sport shoot.  What is all this talk about how much gun owners would be effected?  Or are you doing the SC move and moving the goalposts and pretending like there will be all all out ban and confiscation of all guns (which nobody has said was realistic).   Based on your post about proposals, you seem to be on board with what most in gun thread would be on board with, so it just seems like you are arguing to argue and are hellbent on trying to make this DUI/gun correlation that are two completely different issues that would require different means to address the problems.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

1.  No, but I am not that politically active in many regards if you are using writing my representatives as a measuring stick.  I doubt many are.  You don't seem to like the answer, but there is a bigger culture of booze in our country as far as population and corporate sponsorship that I would get why there isn't mainstream coverage of the evil that is alcohol.   I think that has a bit to do with it - it's hard to talk about booze ban when you are cutting to Coors and Jim Beam commercials a couple times a program.  

2.  Not a cop out answer - you want me to start answering for the other posters now?

3.  You keep trying to related these two topics as though they are a direct correlation and it's not the case.  I don't know why that is so hard.    Using the proposals that you have set out, I would argue that gun owners wouldn't be effected all that much.  They can still defend, hunt, sport shoot.  What is all this talk about how much gun owners would be effected?  Or are you doing the SC move and moving the goalposts and pretending like there will be all all out ban and confiscation of all guns (which nobody has said was realistic).   Based on your post about proposals, you seem to be on board with what most in gun thread would be on board with, so it just seems like you are arguing to argue and are hellbent on trying to make this DUI/gun correlation that are two completely different issues that would require different means to address the problems.  

1 - By comparison, there is very little action to prevent alcohol related deaths. Numbers have stagnated. That is fact.  It's hypocritical to say that you want to save lives, but only by regulating guns. Perhaps if there was more mainstream coverage of alcohol deaths it would be an issue. If we had more Remington commercials, would that change your stance? I think not. Which is why I feel it's a cop out. 

3 - The effects are the same for both. Unnecessary deaths. Some see the solution as being different. Nobody is floating the idea of banning alcohol, or even curbing alcohol possession or use. The proposals are not the same as what I suggested. Banning of all semi automatic rifles and shotguns removes millions of hunting guns from society. I own a deer rifle and 22 caliber rifle that are both semi automatic. They are hunting rifles. Nothing more. It would be the same as saying that all hard liquor should be banned because it is more effective at making a person drunk in a shorter period of time. The solutions are only different if you value the death of a person via alcohol as less than a person who dies because of a firearm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KCitons said:

I think you're overestimating the durability of guns. I don't know where we would find statistics, but the guns that were made in the early 1900's are still just as functional. There is a century of firearms that still work just as well as they did the day they were manufactured. My first deer rifle (and one I still own) is a WWII Mauser. We do know that population growth is slowing in the U.S. So the number of guns per capita is not likely to change from where it is today. Reduction in firearms will only occur through confiscation and gun buybacks. 

Or we do nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Or we do nothing.

Where did I say we should do nothing? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

1 - By comparison, there is very little action to prevent alcohol related deaths. Numbers have stagnated. That is fact.  It's hypocritical to say that you want to save lives, but only by regulating guns. Perhaps if there was more mainstream coverage of alcohol deaths it would be an issue. If we had more Remington commercials, would that change your stance? I think not. Which is why I feel it's a cop out. 

3 - The effects are the same for both. Unnecessary deaths. Some see the solution as being different. Nobody is floating the idea of banning alcohol, or even curbing alcohol possession or use. The proposals are not the same as what I suggested. Banning of all semi automatic rifles and shotguns removes millions of hunting guns from society. I own a deer rifle and 22 caliber rifle that are both semi automatic. They are hunting rifles. Nothing more. It would be the same as saying that all hard liquor should be banned because it is more effective at making a person drunk in a shorter period of time. The solutions are only different if you value the death of a person via alcohol as less than a person who dies because of a firearm.

So maybe that is the goal for you and SC then, maybe others?  Preventing all unnecessary deaths.    I don't think it's honest or realistic just to say that 38,000 people die one way and 40,000 die another way, so we HAVE to prevent #2 otherwise we don't care about people dying.   I don't see that as hypocritical because I didn't come in and set the goal as being all deaths - we were talking about gun deaths in another  thread.    I think people have gotten to the point where they are fully on board with harsh punishments for DUIs as they have said in this thread.  WI laws are a joke as I have stated.   I'm not for an all out ban of booze and don't think it's realistic, so what do you want?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

So maybe that is the goal for you and SC then, maybe others?  Preventing all unnecessary deaths.    I don't think it's honest or realistic just to say that 38,000 people die one way and 40,000 die another way, so we HAVE to prevent #2 otherwise we don't care about people dying.   I don't see that as hypocritical because I didn't come in and set the goal as being all deaths - we were talking about gun deaths in another  thread.    I think people have gotten to the point where they are fully on board with harsh punishments for DUIs as they have said in this thread.  WI laws are a joke as I have stated.   I'm not for an all out ban of booze and don't think it's realistic, so what do you want?  

I'm not for an all out ban of alcohol (or guns) either. But, it seems that there are more people that would be happy with a ban of guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Where did I say we should do nothing? 

 

When you suggested we can't solve the problem without confiscating guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

When you suggested we can't solve the problem without confiscating guns. 

Because there is nothing between doing nothing and confiscating guns?

Weren't you the one that had a hissy fit a few months back, because I said you posted something you didn't. I think the word I'm looking for his hypocrite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I'm not for an all out ban of alcohol (or guns) either. But, it seems that there are more people that would be happy with a ban of guns.

And that should not come as a surprise to anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Because there is nothing between doing nothing and confiscating guns?

Weren't you the one that had a hissy fit a few months back, because I said you posted something you didn't. I think the word I'm looking for his hypocrite. 

Bottlenecking the manufacture and sale of guns is in between. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apple Jack said:

And that should not come as a surprise to anybody.

Because death by gun is worst than death by alcohol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I'm not for an all out ban of alcohol (or guns) either. But, it seems that there are more people that would be happy with a ban of guns.

Maybe it's as simple as 3-4x more people drink alcohol as do own guns?  

Again that last part points to saying people are talking about a ban of all guns, which I would argue very few (if any) in these threads are doing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Politician Spock said:

Bottlenecking the manufacture and sale of guns is in between. 

Only if you are approaching it from a point of view where you want to remove guns from society. I'm not. Which is why I suggested universal background checks, magazine limits, and caliber restrictions, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Because death by gun is worst than death by alcohol?

Well, there are certainly more murders using guns. And your implication that everybody with .08 in a fatal car accident is a drunk driver for the purposes of your argument is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Maybe it's as simple as 3-4x more people drink alcohol as do own guns?  

Again that last part points to saying people are talking about a ban of all guns, which I would argue very few (if any) in these threads are doing.  

Right. Don't tread on my good time, but I can tread on yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Apple Jack said:

Well, there are certainly more murders using guns. And your implication that everybody with .08 in a fatal car accident is a drunk driver for the purposes of your argument is nonsense.

And your implication that everyone that owns an AR15 (or any gun) is a mass shooter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Right. Don't tread on my good time, but I can tread on yours?

Guns are killing machines. Lagunitas Little Sumpin Sumpin not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

And your implication that everyone that owns an AR15 (or any gun) is a mass shooter. 

Mass shooting is the purpose an AR15 exists for.

The purpose of alcohol is not to kill people in car accidents. 

There is a far greater argument that everyone that owns an AR15 is a mass shooter than there is an argument that everyone who drinks is a drunk driver killer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

Guns are killing machines. Lagunitas Little Sumpin Sumpin not so much.

Yeah, this is part of the equation too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

Guns are killing machines. Lagunitas Little Sumpin Sumpin not so much.

Results are the same for the dead person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Only if you are approaching it from a point of view where you want to remove guns from society. I'm not. Which is why I suggested universal background checks, magazine limits, and caliber restrictions, 

You were the one who suggested number of gun deaths is directly related to the number of guns in existence. If you believe that, then your solution won't do a thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Politician Spock said:

Mass shooting is the purpose an AR15 exists for.

The purpose of alcohol is not to kill people in car accidents. 

There is a far greater argument that everyone that owns an AR15 is a mass shooter than there is an argument that everyone who drinks is a drunk driver killer. 

The purpose of lawn darts was not to kill people either. But, here we are.

Facts and numbers prove the bolded as false. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Right. Don't tread on my good time, but I can tread on yours?

Like I was talking with SC, I usually try to toe of the line of "do what you like" in your house, but we need to talk about stuff when it's brought to the public sector and effects others.  I don't see it as hypocritical, but I also don't see the connection of a beer vs. a gun as a direct correlation or equivalent things either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Politician Spock said:

You were the one who suggested number of gun deaths is directly related to the number of guns in existence. If you believe that, then your solution won't do a thing.  

Sure it does. Instead of 30 round magazines from a 5.56, it would be 6 round magazine in .22 caliber. Isn't this the same argument that a person can't kill as many people with a knife instead of a gun? Which is the same argument that we took steps to reduce drunk drivers, without banning alcohol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

The purpose of lawn darts was not to kill people either. But, here we are.

Facts and numbers prove the bolded as false. 

The purpose of lawn hand grenades was family fun as well. Luckily that one never went past the idea stage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KarmaPolice said:

Like I was talking with SC, I usually try to toe of the line of "do what you like" in your house, but we need to talk about stuff when it's brought to the public sector and effects others.  I don't see it as hypocritical, but I also don't see the connection of a beer vs. a gun as a direct correlation or equivalent things either.  

Misuse of a gun causes death to innocent people. Misuse of alcohol causes death to innocent people. It can't be any clearer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Politician Spock said:

The purpose of lawn hand grenades was family fun as well. Luckily that one never went past the idea stage. 

What about water grenades. Those are fun. Same principle, but in watered down. (pun intended)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Sure it does. Instead of 30 round magazines from a 5.56, it would be 6 round magazine in .22 caliber. Isn't this the same argument that a person can't kill as many people with a knife instead of a gun? Which is the same argument that we took steps to reduce drunk drivers, without banning alcohol?

They just show up with more guns. Drunk drivers don't show up with more cars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Misuse of a gun causes death to innocent people. Misuse of alcohol causes death to innocent people. It can't be any clearer. 

A gun was invented to kill things, a beer not so much.  We are not talking about equivalent things.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Politician Spock said:

They just show up with more guns. Drunk drivers don't show up with more cars. 

Right, they just drink another six pack. We take away their right to own alcohol or cars. Misuse a gun and see if you can buy a gun again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KarmaPolice said:

A gun was invented to kill things, a beer not so much.  We are not talking about equivalent things.  

 

Neither were lawn darts. Why were those banned? (or at least altered)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Right, they just drink another six pack. We take away their right to own alcohol or cars. Misuse a gun and see if you can buy a gun again.

Did you just equate a mass killer showing up with more guns to drunk driver drinking twice as much beer?

I think this may be the dumbest ####### thing I've ever read on this forum. Back on ignore you go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Did you just equate a mass killer showing up with more guns to drunk driver drinking twice as much beer?

I think this may be the dumbest ####### thing I've ever read on this forum. Back on ignore you go. 

Coming from a guy that thinks every AR15 owner is a mass shooter. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is gun control a more important issue in this country than alcohol?

Guns deaths vs alcohol deaths

Quote

These numbers do not speak for the most present year of 2018 in either category, but gun laws in California have dropped the number of gun-related deaths, whereas alcohol-related deaths by car have increased.

Quote

So, it begs the question, why aren’t our political leaders trying any harder to shut down alcohol consumption or availability of alcohol? Why aren’t DUI drivers being held more responsible? As one can clearly see, alcohol-related deaths are preventable deaths and outpace gun (not even full weapon numbers) deaths and of those gun death numbers, most are gang-related.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Why is gun control a more important issue in this country than alcohol?

Guns deaths vs alcohol deaths

 

What specifically are you talking about alcohol?  Are you talking about alcohol control compared to gun control?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

What specifically are you talking about alcohol?  Are you talking about alcohol control compared to gun control?

All of it. 

 - Why the outrage over gun deaths in this country, when more people die from alcohol? It can't be about saving lives, otherwise there would be calls for banning alcohol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

All of it. 

 - Why the outrage over gun deaths in this country, when more people die from alcohol? It can't be about saving lives, otherwise there would be calls for banning alcohol. 

Other than people dying as an end result they really are not that comparable.  Alcohol gets regulated all the time and each state and even some counties handle it in the way they want, their is no amendment protecting it.  There are all kinds of groups that are against drinking and drunk driving.

I think you don't see as much outrage because most of us know that there are not only things that have been done but there are always more things being done to improve of alcohol related deaths.  I don't think there is a huge divide in this country on finding ways to lowering alcohol related deaths but there is a HUGE divide on how to lower gun related deaths.

The biggest difference between them is the 2nd Amendment and pretty much the end of it really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Other than people dying as an end result they really are not that comparable.  Alcohol gets regulated all the time and each state and even some counties handle it in the way they want, their is no amendment protecting it.  There are all kinds of groups that are against drinking and drunk driving.

I think you don't see as much outrage because most of us know that there are not only things that have been done but there are always more things being done to improve of alcohol related deaths.  I don't think there is a huge divide in this country on finding ways to lowering alcohol related deaths but there is a HUGE divide on how to lower gun related deaths.

The biggest difference between them is the 2nd Amendment and pretty much the end of it really.

Dead is dead. That's comparable. Whether you're shot or die in a car accident. 

Alcohol regulation hasn't really changed in decades. Which carries a greater penalty? Firing a gun at a crowd (and missing) or driving drunk down a crowded street. One will be treated as attempted homocide. 

I'm not sure what the number of groups against drunk driving has to do with anything. Results are what matters. And DUI deaths are no longer in decline. 

Alcohol is a huge contributing factor in all violence. Not just gun violence. It's also a contributor in sexual assaults. 

I pointed out in your other thread that there is already a much more stringent process to purchase a firearm than there is to purchase alcohol. Yet the number of deaths is greater for the latter. 

I'm not sure what your 2nd Amendment comment has to do with this. If anything, alcohol should be easier to ban since it's not protected by the Constitution. Yet, it's not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Dead is dead. That's comparable. Whether you're shot or die in a car accident. 

Alcohol regulation hasn't really changed in decades. Which carries a greater penalty? Firing a gun at a crowd (and missing) or driving drunk down a crowded street. One will be treated as attempted homocide. 

I'm not sure what the number of groups against drunk driving has to do with anything. Results are what matters. And DUI deaths are no longer in decline. 

Alcohol is a huge contributing factor in all violence. Not just gun violence. It's also a contributor in sexual assaults. 

I pointed out in your other thread that there is already a much more stringent process to purchase a firearm than there is to purchase alcohol. Yet the number of deaths is greater for the latter. 

I'm not sure what your 2nd Amendment comment has to do with this. If anything, alcohol should be easier to ban since it's not protected by the Constitution. Yet, it's not. 

It is easier to ban alcohol but no one wants to do it because it most likely won't do any good.  Any average Joe can make their own beer, wine or liquor but they can't make a gun as easily.

The 2nd Amendment has to do with it because it causes a lot of division between people.  Not only do you have the people who are for advocates for guns but you also have those who are for our constitution.  This adds a second level to the debate on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

It is easier to ban alcohol but no one wants to do it because it most likely won't do any good.  Any average Joe can make their own beer, wine or liquor but they can't make a gun as easily.

The 2nd Amendment has to do with it because it causes a lot of division between people.  Not only do you have the people who are for advocates for guns but you also have those who are for our constitution.  This adds a second level to the debate on the subject.

The bolded is correct.

Why is it people can say, "ban guns and the law abiding gun owner will become a criminal", but when it comes to alcohol, your response is that an average Joe can make their own beer or wine? Wouldn't that make Joe a criminal? With the number of guns in this country (and unregistered guns at that), why is the criminality of keeping a gun any different from making your own alcohol. Both people are criminals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KCitons said:

The bolded is correct.

Why is it people can say, "ban guns and the law abiding gun owner will become a criminal", but when it comes to alcohol, your response is that an average Joe can make their own beer or wine? Wouldn't that make Joe a criminal? With the number of guns in this country (and unregistered guns at that), why is the criminality of keeping a gun any different from making your own alcohol. Both people are criminals. 

You are right, both would be criminals.  Are you now talking about banning guns because that's not the conversation I'm having.  I don't want to ban all guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

You are right, both would be criminals.  Are you now talking about banning guns because that's not the conversation I'm having.  I don't want to ban all guns.

I'm talking about any ban. How can someone suggest banning a semi automatic weapon or high capacity magazines, while defending the right to have cars that go 200 mph and 77 packs of Natty Light?

If one is dangerous, they're all dangerous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I'm talking about any ban. How can someone suggest banning a semi automatic weapon or high capacity magazines, while defending the right to have cars that go 200 mph and 77 packs of Natty Light?

If one is dangerous, they're all dangerous. 

Who's defending any right to have cars go 200 mph and 77 packs of Natty Light.  We don't have a right to have those things.

These arguments are so far of a reach I'm not sure why you do it.  Is it enjoyable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Who's defending any right to have cars go 200 mph and 77 packs of Natty Light.  We don't have a right to have those things.

These arguments are so far of a reach I'm not sure why you do it.  Is it enjoyable?

Do you think a ban on cars that go faster than 85 mph would be received well?

The 77 pack is just a statement about how society sees alcohol vs guns. Excess of one is a badge of honor, excess of the other makes you a kook. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Do you think a ban on cars that go faster than 85 mph would be received well?

The 77 pack is just a statement about how society sees alcohol vs guns. Excess of one is a badge of honor, excess of the other makes you a kook. 

I honestly don't think most Americans would care if cars that can go over 85 mph were banned.  I don't know why you would need to ban the car though when all you have to do it restrict all cars from going over that limit.  We could always still make the same fancy sports cars but just limit them to 85 mph.  I don't think there would be much of an argument since the majority of people driving hardly ever go that fast.

Also, a car is not manufactured to kill but a gun is.  This is one reason why I think these comparisons are stupid.

I agree about the excess comment.  I think it's a bit nutty to own over 100 guns and 100's of thousands of rounds of ammo.

Edited by Hawkeye21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I honestly don't think most Americans would care if cars that can go over 85 mph were banned.  I don't know why you would need to ban the car though when all you have to do it restrict all cars from going over that limit.  We could always still make the same fancy sports cars but just limit them to 85 mph.  I don't think there would be much of an argument since the majority of people driving hardly ever go that fast.

Also, a car is not manufactured to kill but a gun is.  This is one reason why I think these comparisons are stupid.

I agree about the excess comment.  I think it's a bit nutty to own over 100 guns and 100's of thousands of rounds of ammo.

It's stupid to think that people would accept having their cars limited to 85 mph. The only thing deeper than the gun culture in this country is the car culture. But, since you brought up restrictions instead of banning, why can't we apply that to guns as well? Wouldn't restricting assault rifles to 22 caliber and 10 rounds allow people to still own the firearm, just at a limited ability? 

Quit saying that guns are manufactured to kill. You of all people should know this. There are tons of people that shoot guns for sport that never kill an animal (or a person) The gun debate is due to the killing of people. Not animals. So when you look at deaths caused by both guns and alcohol, it is a valid comparison. How do you explain the ban on lawn darts? Were they manufactured to kill things?

We live in a free country. Owning a 100 of anything is part of that freedom as long is it doesn't hurt others around us. When things go wrong, guns, alcohol, cars, lawn darts can all hurt others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.