WhiteTim Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Giving kids alcohol is hardly the same as giving them a gun. I don't agree kids should have access to it, but a simple slip up wont end in death of innocent people or several people. Like the girl who killed her instructor when firing a gun a few months ago. Alcohol has benefits for the average person and gun has zero benefits. (in their day to day life). I couldn't care less if alcohol was banned. I don't drink and on most cases I don't hang around with drunk people, so yea if Alcohol left it would make zero difference to me and I would live my life as I currently do. So yea no bias here. At this rate why don't why try and ban cars as well. They kill more then both. What benefits does alcohol have???? It makes people drunk that can lead to death or lead girls to be taken advantage of is THAT the benefit of alcohol you're speaking of?
Cruise Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 What benefits does alcohol have???? It makes people drunk that can lead to death or lead girls to be taken advantage of is THAT the benefit of alcohol you're speaking of? When consumed in moderation it can have some health benefits. "Very moderate amounts of alcohol (around half a standard drink a day) may provide health benefits for some middle-aged or older people by reducing the risk of some types of cardiovascular disease. " http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Alcohol Its not super great but it is at least some benefit.
WhiteTim Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 When consumed in moderation it can have some health benefits. "Very moderate amounts of alcohol (around half a standard drink a day) may provide health benefits for some middle-aged or older people by reducing the risk of some types of cardiovascular disease. "http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Alcohol Its not super great but it is at least some benefit. Didn't know that
Spike Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Heart attacks kill far more people than guns, and yet still we allow everyone to have a heart. End this madness.
AlissaGoesRAWR Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Curious why no one found any justified responses to Tim's argument that alcohol kills other people at a greater (or very similar) rate than guns but no one is advocating more limits on alcohol. Drunk driving is illegal, so is threatening someone with a gun. Killing people while drunk driving is illegal, so is killing someone with a gun. Just because they're illegal doesn't mean it's fixed anything at all. Some stats Firearm homicides Number of deaths: 11,068 Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6 Drunk driving Number of deaths: 10,322 Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.3 Why are these numbers not comparable? It seems most people who like to drink believe the solution is better education or better information to reduce the amount of drunk driving related deaths. No one is seriously advocating putting more limits on the types of alcohol you can get or making you go through a background check to purchase it to make sure you use it responsibly. What if I told you "well if you're not for more control and bans you're condemning 10,300 more people to die this year!" Wouldn't a more practical response to this drunk driving justification be to ban cars, not alcohol? The alcohol isn't killing people when someone drunk drives, the car is... that's the tool used for the killing. In the same way a mental issue or underlying emotional problem is the reason people use a gun, a tool, to kill other humans. The difference, as many have said, is a gun is used solely to kill. Truthfully, what is any other purpose? Cars are used to drive. Alcohol is used to inebriate, not kill (although long-term, I suppose you could argue it does kill some people).
WhiteTim Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Wouldn't a more practical response to this drunk driving justification be to ban cars, not alcohol? The alcohol isn't killing people when someone drunk drives, the car is... that's the tool used for the killing. In the same way a mental issue or underlying emotional problem is the reason people use a gun, a tool, to kill other humans. The difference, as many have said, is a gun is used solely to kill. Truthfully, what is any other purpose? Cars are used to drive. Alcohol is used to inebriate, not kill (although long-term, I suppose you could argue it does kill some people). Guns don't kill people you need to ban bullets a gun can not kill without a bullet go ahead try to kill a person with a unloaded gun Don't worry I'll wait... That is the most asinine excuse to defend drunk driving I've ever fucking seen... "Alcohol doesn't kill cars do" but then say stupid shit as "guns kill" no it doesn't BULLETS kill guns nope sorry try again
AlissaGoesRAWR Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Guns don't kill people you need to ban bullets a gun can not kill without a bullet go ahead try to kill a person with a unloaded gun Don't worry I'll wait... The gun/bullets are a single tool used to kill. Without either, the other is useless. You know what I meant.
WhiteTim Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 The gun/bullets are a single tool used to kill. Without either, the other is useless. You know what I meant. And what do drunk drivers need to drive a car drunk? ALCOHOL yes alcofuckinghol
AlissaGoesRAWR Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 And what do drunk drivers need to drive a car drunk? ALCOHOL yes alcofuckinghol Again, alcohol is not created with the purpose of killing people. I understand you had a serious, traumatizing life occurrence because of alcohol, and I'm very sorry about that, but that doesn't mean your opinions regarding it are automatically correct. Cars and alcohol (obviously) do not go hand-in-hand, thank God. But bullets and guns do. One is designed for the other, and both are weapons used to kill people and animals. Using alcohol-related deaths as a justification for not enforcing gun laws is like saying we should outlaw water because of drowning, McDonald's because of heart attacks and sugar because of diabetes. It just doesn't make sense. Just because other things kill you, doesn't make guns any less deadly, and frankly, unnecessary.
WhiteTim Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I love how people attack guns but never once the person behind the gun But bring up alcohol people are so quick to blame EVERYTHING ELSE AND THEIR MAMA is the cause but never the alcohol Do you realize how fucked up your mentalty is by that? Has alcohol ever saved a life NOPE has a gun ever saved somebody's life yes (speak to any vet or someone who used a gun to defend himself)
rootbeersoup Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 We live in a world where it's perfectly legal to murder someone with a gun, yet making quality posts on a Green Day forum is a bannable offense.
WhiteTim Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Don't blame alcohol no don't do that blame the cars If your kid robs a bank don't blame the kid blame the bank for having money But don't ever blame the alcohol causes it not designed to kill That's how this argument sounds
Z J Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 The whole alcohol argument doesn't work once you compare the ratio of people who drink:die from drunk driving vs. use guns:cause deaths.
Tubbie Head Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 How do you suggest we eat? What about the hunters?Just go veggie, much better choice. Not like most animals you eat were killed by guns anyway.
WhiteTim Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 The whole alcohol argument doesn't work once you compare the ratio of people who drink:die from drunk driving vs. use guns:cause deaths. How they're almost neck and neck Please look at Fuzz's post you see the numbers are nearly identical... But again you really don't give a fuck about the people dying itself you're on a bandwagon pure fucking puppet you are Just go veggie, much better choice. Not like most animais you eat were killed by guns anyway.I eat deer that friends hunt and duck as well
Clean Cut Asshole Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Just go veggie, much better choice. If someone wants to eat meat just let them. I personally do not eat meat, but it's not like I get offended by anyone who eats meat or anything, and I wish all vegetarians/vegans would act like that. Back when I did eat meat, people telling me to stop just pissed me off and I think it's kind of rude to tell people what to eat.
WhiteTim Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 If someone wants to eat meat just let them. I personally do not eat meat, but it's not like I get offended by anyone who eats meat or anything, and I wish all vegetarians/vegans would act like that. Back when I did eat meat, people telling me to stop just pissed me off and I think it's kind of rude to tell people what to eat. Perfectly said I eat fruits and veggies as well but I couldn't survive on just that and props on you and anyone else that does one of my ex's was a veggie she tried to get me onto boca (or whatever that brand was) and man that was a hellish year... But props on the healthy folks
Cruise Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 How they're almost neck and neck Please look at Fuzz's post you see the numbers are nearly identical... But again you really don't give a fuck about the people dying itself you're on a bandwagon pure fucking puppet you are He meant the amount of people who drink to the amount of people who die of alcohol related events compared to the amount of people who use guns to how many are killed by in events related to them. Completely made up number (obviously) for demonstration of what he meant. So say both kill 4 people. 200 people drink and 50 use guns. So it would be for every 50 drinkers 1 person dies. For every 50 gun users 4 people are killed.
UNICORN VOMIT Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 He meant the amount of people who drink to the amount of people who die of alcohol related events compared to the amount of people who use guns to how many are killed by in events related to them. Completely made up number (obviously) for demonstration of what he meant. So say both kill 4 people. 200 people drink and 50 use guns. So it would be for every 50 drinkers 1 person dies. For every 50 gun users 4 people are killed. Just watch the cricket - it's more relaxing
WhiteTim Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 He meant the amount of people who drink to the amount of people who die of alcohol related events compared to the amount of people who use guns to how many are killed by in events related to them. Completely made up number (obviously) for demonstration of what he meant. So say both kill 4 people. 200 people drink and 50 use guns. So it would be for every 50 drinkers 1 person dies. For every 50 gun users 4 people are killed. Ok but not to go in a circle but the end results are nearly the same amount of people die from both Fuzz's stats he posted is not made up right? People aren't upset about alcohol cause even the anti gun nuts are drinkers...
Hermione Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Hasn't banning alcohol been shown to not work (see 1920's Prohibition) though? Whereas there's multiple case studies (see European countries, Australia etc) that show banning/severely restricting guns can work? There's all kinds of different ways that different ways of dying could possibly be prevented but some are more likely to be effective and have less drawbacks than others. Seeing as almost every other country gets by just fine without people having guns, and has much fewer people being killed as a result, that would suggest it's very effective and has few drawbacks so there's a good chance it'd be a good idea to work towards that. I still don't see how whether banning alcohol would also be a good idea is relevant though....if banning guns would be beneficial it'd still be beneficial whether banning alcohol would also be beneficial or not so how is that an argument against it? If someone wants to eat meat just let them. I personally do not eat meat, but it's not like I get offended by anyone who eats meat or anything, and I wish all vegetarians/vegans would act like that. Back when I did eat meat, people telling me to stop just pissed me off and I think it's kind of rude to tell people what to eat. It's not rude to make a suggestion in response to a question ("How do you suggest we eat?"). Pretty sure it wasn't an entirely serious suggestion anyway, the vast majority of animals eaten by people aren't killed by guns and there's no country where hunting animals for food with guns isn't legal in some form, there's just strict rules about who can do it and how the guns are handled and stored etc. Banning/restricting guns would have no effect on how people eat so the question was irrelevant.
WhiteTim Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Hasn't banning alcohol been shown to not work (see 1920's Prohibition) though? Whereas there's multiple case studies (see European countries, Australia etc) that show banning/severely restricting guns can work? There's all kinds of different ways that different ways of dying could possibly be prevented but some are more likely to be effective and have less drawbacks than others. Seeing as almost every other country gets by just fine without people having guns, and has much fewer people being killed as a result, that would suggest it's very effective and has few drawbacks so there's a good chance it'd be a good idea to work towards that. I still don't see how whether banning alcohol would also be a good idea is relevant though....if banning guns would be beneficial it'd still be beneficial whether banning alcohol would also be beneficial or not so how is that an argument against it? It's not rude to make a suggestion in response to a question ("How do you suggest we eat?"). Pretty sure it wasn't an entirely serious suggestion anyway, the vast majority of animals eaten by people aren't killed by guns and there's no country where hunting animals for food with guns isn't legal in some form, there's just strict rules about who can do it and how the guns are handled and stored etc. Banning/restricting guns would have no effect on how people eat so the question was irrelevant. Alcohol related deaths and gun deaths are neck to neck Why is it we ban one thing that kills a lot but keep one that kills pretty much the same amount of people? Yall are saying gun murders bad alcohol killings good
Hermione Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Alcohol related deaths and gun deaths are neck to neck Why is it we ban one thing that kills a lot but keep one that kills pretty much the same amount of people? Yall are saying gun murders bad alcohol killings good Why don't we bring every single other thing that could cause death into it then? Cars, fatty food, swimming pools, dogs, hammers. Unless we ban all of them, we can't ban any of them! In fact why is it illegal for people to keep bombs and anthrax in their house or have a pet lion that they walk down the street on a lead? Unless alcohol is also going to be banned I think we should un-ban those things!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.