Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ladypanther

Ban weapons of mass destruction.....NOW

613 posts in this topic

In 1982 21000 people died in alcohol related crashes.

Perhaps we could reduce gun violence by half as well with more laws, regulations,and awareness.

Great example!

Yes it is a great example. Odly enough not in the way you meant it though. We were able to reduce alcohol related crashes by punishing BEHAVIOR not by restricting access to alcohol. This is the same way to reduce violent crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is a great example. Odly enough not in the way you meant it though. We were able to reduce alcohol related crashes by punishing BEHAVIOR not by restricting access to alcohol. This is the same way to reduce violent crime.

So things like raising the drinking age by three years aren't restricting access I guess.

Here we go making up poo again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not the one defying logic. My position is data based. And it is one I have held for a long time.

The shooter in Conn was not a criminal...he had no record before the killings. He did have access to legal weapons of mass destruction. Without that access...maybe a few more kids and maybe a teacher would be alive today.

I read a while back about a guy who snapped while he was driving in SF and plowed through many school children crossing the street.

He had no criminal record. No driving infractions. No history of mental illness. He just snapped one day and used the weapon he had at his disposal, a Buick, to kill several people.

It's sad what happened to those kids. It truly is. But sometimes in life poo happens that you can't control.

I've had a brother-in-law murdered by a knife, two very dear friends murdered by guns, and lost my best friend to a drunk driver. Neither alcohol, nor knives, nor guns should be banned in my opinion. And yes, if my daughter was one of the victims I would feel the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So things like raising the drinking age by three years aren't restricting access I guess.

Here we go making up poo again.

Raising the drinking age was not the predominant factor in dropping the alcohol fatality rate the 15-20 age group made up about 1 in 4 of the 21,000 (around 5,000) and about 1 in 5 of the 10,000 (around 2000)

ps Im pretty sure we already have age restrictions on gun purchases and have no issue with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raising the drinking age was not the predominant factor in dropping the alcohol fatality rate the 15-20 age group made up about 1 in 4 of the 21,000 (around 5,000) and about 1 in 5 of the 10,000 (around 2000)

ps Im pretty sure we already have age restrictions on gun purchases and have no issue with that.

Difference is, if your are drinking and driving you will get arrested. If you have a gun, there is nothing punitive until after you kill someone.

Also, as I have said several times, there isn't an epidemic of people getting into cars with a sole purpose of killing others. The vast majority of people that die in car crashes did not set out to crash their car that day. If they did I would be on board with stricter car regulations and the banning of certain cars.

Also comparing an object of transportation with an object of death is not a really strong comparison in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To summarize the gun ban argument in this thread, it's ban all or certain types of weapons simply because law abiding citizens don't "need" them. If that is the basis of your argument, step back and think about how weak that is. Why should I, a law abiding citizen living in 'Merica, be denied the right to lawfully own a gun, or heaven forbid an AR15? (insert ignoramus lib argument, "So you're saying I should be be able to own nukes") If you follow that logic, why should that single guy up the road have that 2400 sq ft house, he doesn't need it. In fact, lets boot him out and stick this more deserving 5 member family in there while were at it. I'm finished defending something that I don't need to defend. If I want something, and can legally obtain it, I get it. That's why we are all so blessed to live in the USA.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difference is, if your are drinking and driving you will get arrested. If you have a gun, there is nothing punitive until after you kill someone.

Also, as I have said several times, there isn't an epidemic of people getting into cars with a sole purpose of killing others. The vast majority of people that die in car crashes did not set out to crash their car that day. If they did I would be on board with stricter car regulations and the banning of certain cars.

Also comparing an object of transportation with an object of death is not a really strong comparison in my opinion.

Guns are designed to do one thing, kill things.

Alcohol is designed to do one thing, impair people.

So why don't we ban alcohol, if it is sold with the sole purpose of causing a huge risk to both those that consume it, and those that are just at the wrong place at the wrong time when someone consumes too much and kills them? Alcohol serves no other purpose other than to fug you up.

Because in America there are things that have an inherent risk that we trust the citizens to take care of responsibly, and when one of those citizens doesn't do that, it shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction to fug everybody else.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are designed to do one thing, kill things.

Alcohol is designed to do one thing, impair people.

So why don't we ban alcohol, if it is sold with the sole purpose of causing a huge risk to both those that consume it, and those that are just at the wrong place at the wrong time when someone consumes too much and kills them? Alcohol serves no other purpose other than to fug you up.

Because in America there are things that have an inherent risk that we trust the citizens to take care of responsibly, and when one of those citizens doesn't do that, it shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction to fug everybody else.

There is some truth to what you are saying. But people aren't taking bottles of Vodka and throwing them at kids and killing them.

That is also why there is preventative measures like making it illegal to drive while you are fugged up.

With guns they only arrest you after you kill a bunch of people, with alcohol they try to arrest you before that can happen.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are designed to do one thing, kill things.

Alcohol is designed to do one thing, impair people.

So why don't we ban alcohol, if it is sold with the sole purpose of causing a huge risk to both those that consume it, and those that are just at the wrong place at the wrong time when someone consumes too much and kills them? Alcohol serves no other purpose other than to fug you up.

Because in America there are things that have an inherent risk that we trust the citizens to take care of responsibly, and when one of those citizens doesn't do that, it shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction to fug everybody else.

Firearms and alcohol when used responsibly (not together) are unlikely to pose a threat to innocent bystanders.

Both firearms and alcohol are safer today because of federal, state and local government regulations.

Current federal, state and local regulations for firearms are still not sufficient and need to be revised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites