Alcohol Control

[Nathan89]

Ban alcohol.

It's not a constitutional right.
It's not useful in anyway besides for recreational purposes.
It's the cause of countless deaths every year.

Enough is Enough. Are we just going to stay silent while thousands die from drunk driving every year? The news is trying to work up the nation over 17 lives and the nation is silent over these thousands of lives being lost. Are we as a people so at the whims of manipulation that 17 lives will garner our outrage at such drastic levels and we'd be completely silent about thousands that die every year because of alcohol?

I mean alcohol only matches guns in terms of the recreational aspect. Alcohol isn't useful for self defense. Alcohol isn't going help battle a tyrannical government. Alcohol is basically useless for us as a people but it causes so many deaths. It's time for us to say "Enough is Enough".

I'm just shocked that all these other countries haven't banned it in an effort to save lives. They banned guns under the premise that it would save lives. Why have they not done the same for alcohol? It's basically a moral obligation. We must not stand by any longer. It's a moral duty.

[Pavlov]

Does this mean you won't be whining about this in the gun control thread anymore?

[Nathan89]

Don't worry I'll continue comment in the gun control thread.

[Pavlov]

Don't worry I'll continue comment in the gun control thread.Then why start this whining thread?

[Nathan89]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/18/woman-gets-20-years-for-dui-accident-that-killed-cop-university-employee.html

Basically 1/8th of the damage done at that school and basically 0% of the outrage followed. 2 lives lost and nobody bats an eye.

We can't stand by and let this happen. Write your representatives. Kids organize your school walkouts.

[Pavlov]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/18/woman-gets-20-years-for-dui-accident-that-killed-cop-university-employee.html

Basically 1/8th of the damage done at that school and basically 0% of the outrage followed. 2 lives lost and nobody bats an eye.

We can't stand by and let this happen. Write your representatives. Kids organize your school walkouts.Show me the letter you sent to your representatives so we have an idea what to say.

[DMC]

Ban alcohol.

It's not a constitutional right.
It's not useful in anyway besides for recreational purposes.
It's the cause of countless deaths every year.

Enough is Enough. Are we just going to stay silent while thousands die from drunk driving every year? The news is trying to work up the nation over 17 lives and the nation is silent over these thousands of lives being lost. Are we as a people so at the whims of manipulation that 17 lives will garner our outrage at such drastic levels and we'd be completely silent about thousands that die every year because of alcohol?

I mean alcohol only matches guns in terms of the recreational aspect. Alcohol isn't useful for self defense. Alcohol isn't going help battle a tyrannical government. Alcohol is basically useless for us as a people but it causes so many deaths. It's time for us to say "Enough is Enough".

I'm just shocked that all these other countries haven't banned it in an effort to save lives. They banned guns under the premise that it would save lives. Why have they not done the same for alcohol? It's basically a moral obligation. We must not stand by any longer. It's a moral duty.
I'll drink to that.

But prohibition has been tried and it failed. It gave rise to crime syndicates that are still in operation today, and the Kennedy's would be nowhere without it.

The same would be true for a gun ban. Only the law abiding would be affected. You could still get shit faced quite easily during prohibition, just like you can find pot and coke now fairly easily.

[Nathan89]

Show me the letter you sent to your representatives so we have an idea what to say.

Originality is best tbh. If you speak from the heart the impact will be much more significant.

[Pavlov]

Originality is best tbh. If you speak from the heart the impact will be much more significant.Just take a quick picture of it. You did send your representatives letters about this, didn't you?

[DMC]

Chumplov making it about the poster again. Pav homimem.

[Pavlov]

Chumplov making it about the poster again. Pav homimem.OP made a call to action.

I wanted to make sure he did what he called for himself.

Also, lol DMC complaining about making it about the poster.

[Nathan89]

Here I thought Pavlov would be the first on board. It's in the name of saving lives after all. We need to push the policy to prohibit alcohol. At the moment when I look at the reaction to guns vs alcohol it just feels like the media is manipulating the nation and distracting us from a target that we can all agree is bad for the country. The negative of alcohol simply outweighs the positive. We as a society have recognize our moral obligation to save innocent lives.

[Pavlov]

Here I thought Pavlov would be the first on board. It's in the name of saving lives after all. We need to push the policy to prohibit alcohol. At the moment when I look at the reaction to guns vs alcohol it just feels like the media is manipulating the nation and distracting us from a target that we can all agree is bad for the country. The negative of alcohol simply outweighs the positive. We as a society have recognize our moral obligation to save innocent lives.You did send your representatives letters about this, didn't you?

[Nathan89]

Pushing policy to prohibit alcohol will be easy compared to guns. This is a sure path to a quick way to save thousands of lives per year. Don't let the media distract you from this attainable goal.

[BD24]

What a fucking faggot :lol

[DMC]

OP made a call to action.

I wanted to make sure he did what he called for himself.

Also, lol DMC complaining about making it about the poster.

You made it about the OP. That's your M.O.

You're not even interested in the topic. For some reason you think that, although the last 5500 attempts at cornering someone on their own claims failed, this next one is sure to be a success.

Keep toiling away at it :lol

[Nathan89]

You did send your representatives letters about this, didn't you?

Don't worry about the impact others are making on the movement my friend. Push as hard as you can. Every bit helps but currently you are derailing a thread that is aiming to save lives.

[Pavlov]

You made it about the OP. That's your M.O.

You're not even interested in the topic. For some reason you think that, although the last 5500 attempts at cornering someone on their own claims failed, this next one is sure to be a success.

Keep toiling away at it :lolAnd you're making this about me.

You're not even interested in this topic.

Keep toiling away at it :lol

[Blake]

What a terrible thread

[Pavlov]

What a terrible threadWell DMC is making it about me so it will hold his interest.

[Nathan89]

Feel free to post all the articles about the victims of alcohol in this thread.

[Pavlov]

Feel free to post all the articles about the victims of alcohol in this thread.You did send your representatives letters about this issue, didn't you?

[DMC]

What a terrible thread

Lappy dog right on time!

[DMC]

I'll drink to that.

But prohibition has been tried and it failed. It gave rise to crime syndicates that are still in operation today, and the Kennedy's would be nowhere without it.

The same would be true for a gun ban. Only the law abiding would be affected. You could still get shit faced quite easily during prohibition, just like you can find pot and coke now fairly easily.


And you're making this about me.

You're not even interested in this topic.

Keep toiling away at it :lol

I already responded to the OP, unlike you.

:lol

Walk me through how you would go about it

Be specific

Tell me more

[Nathan89]

You did send your representatives letters about this issue, didn't you?

I'm doing my part but you are derailing a movement that I know you support. Calm down. Rest at ease knowing I'm doing my part in this movement. Your derailing isn't going to help save lives. You don't want people to lose their lives because of continued access to alcohol do you?

[spurraider21]

Self driving cars will do wonders regarding drunk driving deaths.

[Pavlov]

Oooh -- maybe DMC will make it about Blake now!

Wouldn't be the first time.

[DMC]

Self driving cars will do wonders regarding drunk driving deaths.

They've had taxis for a long time, and designated drivers. Drunk people will insist on taking the wheel.

[Pavlov]

Self driving cars will do wonders regarding drunk driving deaths.That's a great point tbh and totes on topic.

[Nathan89]

Should we do an alcohol buy back? How do we compensate the bar owners across the country? There will be hurdles but if we collaborate will be able to ban alcohol and save thousands of lives per year.

[DMC]

Oooh -- maybe DMC will make it about Blake now!

Wouldn't be the first time.

"I'll just repeat what he says back at him, no one older than 5 ever thought of that" -Chumpy

[Pavlov]

"I'll just repeat what he says back at him, no one older than 5 ever thought of that" -ChumpySo you're going to keep making it about me?

OK.

Wouldn't be the first time.

[Blake]

Lappy dog right on time!


Oooh -- maybe DMC will make it about Blake now!

Wouldn't be the first time.

I'll be a prognosticator and say it won't be the last

[DMC]

Should we do an alcohol buy back? How do we compensate the bar owners across the country? There will be hurdles but if we collaborate will be able to ban alcohol and save thousands of lives per year.

It's really only the high capacity cases that need to be regulated, and of course liquors. I cannot believe you can actually own liquor in this day and age, but I suppose people need "muh drink".

[Pavlov]

I'll be a prognosticator and say it won't be the lastHe's going to get huffy at some point because it's been pointed out he's making it all about other posters.

But the only way he can "fight" is to continue to make it about other posters.

[DMC]

I'll be a prognosticator and say it won't be the last

You are indeed the oracle of forum wisdom.

[Blake]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/18/woman-gets-20-years-for-dui-accident-that-killed-cop-university-employee.html

Basically 1/8th of the damage done at that school and basically 0% of the outrage followed. 2 lives lost and nobody bats an eye.

We can't stand by and let this happen. Write your representatives. Kids organize your school walkouts.

There are already laws in place about drunk driving, genius

[Nathan89]

Self driving cars will do wonders regarding drunk driving deaths.

We can't wait for self driving cars tbh. Thousands of lives are being lost every year and it's be happening for decades. Even countries that disarmed their citizens in the name of safety haven't took these necessary measures.

In the future though when self driving cars are the majority we should revisit the possibility of allowing the public to use alcohol. Until that point comes though it's a moral obligation that we speak up for the many thousands of victims of alcohol every year.

[Blake]

You are indeed the oracle of forum wisdom.

You're indeed not.

[Nathan89]

There are already laws in place about drunk driving, genius

There are laws in place about shooting people as well.

[Nathan89]

It's really only the high capacity cases that need to be regulated, and of course liquors. I cannot believe you can actually own liquor in this day and age, but I suppose people need "muh drink".

Such selfish people tbh. I mean everyone should be willing to give up their alcohol to save innocent lives. Of course big alcohol spends 30mil per year controlling our government. That's why we need to come together and be heard.

[Blake]

There are laws in place about shooting people as well.

Who is calling for an all out ban on guns?

[spurraider21]

They've had taxis for a long time, and designated drivers. Drunk people will insist on taking the wheel.
Great point. Might as well repeal all laws.

[Blake]

Such selfish people tbh. I mean everyone should be willing to give up their alcohol to save innocent lives. Of course big alcohol spends 30mil per year controlling our government. That's why we need to come together and be heard.

The end game of this silly sarcastic thread won't go your way.

[Nathan89]

Who is calling for an all out ban on guns?

Many people want to ban all guns. They use ineffective policies that don't move the needle as stopgaps to that end goal.

[Blake]

Many people want to ban all guns. They use ineffective policies that don't move the needle as stopgaps to that end goal.

Oh look: strawmen.

Nice!

[Nathan89]

Great point. Might as well repeal all laws.

This is why we must ban alcohol. There are simply too many innocent victims of alcohol. We can trust that death substance in the hands of the public.

[Pavlov]

CROFL "many people"

[DMC]

Great point. Might as well repeal all laws.
You're the lawyer. That's on you.

[spurraider21]

Many people want to ban all guns. They use ineffective policies that don't move the needle as stopgaps to that end goal.
They should do what Australia and the UK did and just ban violent video games

[Nathan89]

Oh look: strawmen.

Nice!

Many people want to ban guns. Fact.

I've read many comment of people stating they'll take "x" policy for now but also stating their end goal. Fact

[spurraider21]

You're the lawyer. That's on you.
Lawyers don’t repeal laws. Elected legislators do

[KenMcCoy]

We should only ban certain kinds of alcohol, like Boone's Farm and Mad Dog 20/20.

[DMC]

"The 2nd Amendment is outdated"

"You couldn't stop tyranny with a gun"

"Militias don't even exist anymore"

The narrative is that there should be no constitutional right to own a firearm. Pretending it only would affect semi-autos because of what you think "ought" to be is cute. If you think the 2nd is outdated and needs to be repealed, then you think people should not have a right to own guns. That would eventually apply to all guns. No right to own means no guns in many states (some who have had their hands slapped already by the Supreme Court over constitutional violations, just imagine if the 2nd was repealed).

File in, all you exceptions who love your liberal representatives but claim to not be totally against the 2nd. Sound off.

:lol

[DMC]

Lawyers don’t repeal laws. Elected legislators do

No shit cardboard brain.

[DMC]

You're indeed not.

sick burn

[spurraider21]

No shit cardboard brain.


sick burn

[Spurminator]

This thread is chock full of unique perspectives that are so rarely brought up in gun debates by 2nd Amendment supporters. Hopefully you guys will also explain what assault weapons are/aren't soon, I'm dying to read what you have to say about that.

[Blake]

Lol dmc

[Nathan89]

"The 2nd Amendment is outdated"

"You couldn't stop tyranny with a gun"

"Militias don't even exist anymore"

The narrative is that there should be no constitutional right to own a firearm. Pretending it only would affect semi-autos because of what you think "ought" to be is cute. If you think the 2nd is outdated and needs to be repealed, then you think people should not have a right to own guns. That would eventually apply to all guns. No right to own means no guns in many states (some who have had their hands slapped already by the Supreme Court over constitutional violations, just imagine if the 2nd was repealed).

File in, all you exceptions who love your liberal representatives but claim to not be totally against the 2nd. Sound off.

:lol

Sad that stating the logical conclusion to them is making a "giant leap to fantasy".

[Nathan89]

This thread is chock full of unique perspectives that are so rarely brought up in gun debates by 2nd Amendment supporters. Hopefully you guys will also explain what assault weapons are/aren't soon, I'm dying to read what you have to say about that.

This is a movement to save lives. You are either for an alcohol ban or you are for thousands of innocent lives being taken by alcohol every year. Sounds like you are for the latter.

[DMC]

This thread is chock full of unique perspectives that are so rarely brought up in gun debates by 2nd Amendment supporters. Hopefully you guys will also explain what assault weapons are/aren't soon, I'm dying to read what you have to say about that.

You should ask your boyfriend.

Wait, that's your alt account.

nm

[DMC]

Lol dmc

That's really rich coming from the forum "nother level" drip pan.

[boutons_deux]

There are already laws in place about drunk driving, genius

but most of USA has BAL of 0.08, a BS level by BigAlcohol buying legislators, when countries serious about drunk drivers use BAL 0.05 or lower.

[Spurminator]

This is a movement to save lives. You are either for an alcohol ban or you are for thousands of innocent lives being taken by alcohol every year. Sounds like you are for the latter.

I like how you've created a metaphor for guns by using something else in society that is more widely accepted, this is a fresh take. Did you consider how cars are also like guns?

[DMC]

I have to wonder with all the teaching that's been going on regarding the technical aspects of guns, if any of you correct your liberal friends when they say something like "machine guns like the AR-15 should be outlawed!"

[Pavlov]

This is a movement to save lives. You are either for an alcohol ban or you are for thousands of innocent lives being taken by alcohol every year. Sounds like you are for the latter.Did you write your representatives about this issue?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

You should ask your boyfriend.

Wait, that's your alt account.

nm


That's really rich coming from the forum "nother level" drip pan.


I have to wonder with all the teaching that's been going on regarding the technical aspects of guns, if any of you correct your liberal friends when they say something like "machine guns like the AR-15 should be outlawed!"Remember when you complained about my making it about the poster?

lol DMC

[Spurminator]

If only we had real-world examples of countries who have instituted strong gun measures and greatly reduced or eliminated, somehow, the means for criminals to acquire those guns and use them to commit mass murder. I imagine any such country must have also eliminated criminals (because otherwise, there would be criminals getting guns), not to mention violent video games and movies.

[Blake]

That's really rich coming from the forum "nother level" drip pan.

Lol resorting to spurtacluar's retarded line

[Blake]

but most of USA has BAL of 0.08, a BS level by BigAlcohol buying legislators, when countries serious about drunk drivers use BAL 0.05 or lower.

I'd be fine with .05

[Blake]

I like how you've created a metaphor for guns by using something else in society that is more widely accepted, this is a fresh take. Did you consider how cars are also like guns?

Oh shit. Imagine cars AND alcohol. ....TOGETHER!

But people are gonna drink and drive no matter what so no use making any laws to curtail it.

[RandomGuy]

Ban alcohol.

It's not a constitutional right.
It's not useful in anyway besides for recreational purposes.
It's the cause of countless deaths every year.

Enough is Enough. Are we just going to stay silent while thousands die from drunk driving every year? The news is trying to work up the nation over 17 lives and the nation is silent over these thousands of lives being lost. Are we as a people so at the whims of manipulation that 17 lives will garner our outrage at such drastic levels and we'd be completely silent about thousands that die every year because of alcohol?

I mean alcohol only matches guns in terms of the recreational aspect. Alcohol isn't useful for self defense. Alcohol isn't going help battle a tyrannical government. Alcohol is basically useless for us as a people but it causes so many deaths. It's time for us to say "Enough is Enough".

I'm just shocked that all these other countries haven't banned it in an effort to save lives. They banned guns under the premise that it would save lives. Why have they not done the same for alcohol? It's basically a moral obligation. We must not stand by any longer. It's a moral duty.

Alcohol as a variety of industrial uses, and is a way of concentrating and storing chemical energy.

The primary purpose of the product is not to harm others, and the harm is generally limited to self, which limits the moral argument substantially. Consumption of alcohol in moderate amounts has actually proven to have positive health impacts.

Preventing drunk driving is important. I am all for cars with sensors that disable themselves if the owner has been drinking.

If you argument is based on morals, define what standard you are using, as specifically as possible.

[RandomGuy]

This is a movement to save lives. You are either for an alcohol ban or you are for thousands of innocent lives being taken by alcohol every year. Sounds like you are for the latter.

You either think reasoning through false dichotomies is valid, or you don't.

[Monostradamus]

:lmao the self ownage in this thread is incredible. Gun nuts aren't the brightest bunch.

[Monostradamus]

And if the government decided on another alcohol ban, I certainly won't be opposed. I like to drink as much as the next guy, but if it's for the greater good, and will prove to save lives, then fine. My rights don't trump the safety & well being of millions. My life doesn't revolve around a bottle the way yours revolves around :cry muh guns :cry.

[Brazil]

:lol we know the mechanism already

Trump ... but but Hilary
Gun ... but but Alcohol

on a side note, OP is a massive faggot but we all already knew that

[TeyshaBlue]

Self driving cars will do wonders regarding drunk driving deaths.

Gasahol, dumbass!

[DMC]

Self driving cars will do wonders regarding drunk driving deaths.

Uber self-driving car kills pedestrian in first fatal autonomous crash

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-autonomous-car-fatal-crash/index.html


:lol Philo

"But it's not a drunk driving death" -/Lawyer

[spurraider21]

Yup. After all i made the claim that once we have first generation self driving cars we will never have a vehicular fatality ever again. Totally set myself up for that one

[Nathan89]

And if the government decided on another alcohol ban, I certainly won't be opposed. I like to drink as much as the next guy, but if it's for the greater good, and will prove to save lives, then fine. My rights don't trump the safety & well being of millions. My life doesn't revolve around a bottle the way yours revolves around :cry muh guns :cry.

The idiocy of this comment is beyond comprehension tbh. Perhaps you should take a little time to think of all the policy you can push with this as your standard.

[Nathan89]

:lol we know the mechanism already

Trump ... but but Hilary
Gun ... but but Alcohol

on a side note, OP is a massive faggot but we all already knew that

"I hate perspective."

That's fundamentally what you are complaining about.

[Spurminator]

Yup. After all i made the claim that once we have first generation self driving cars we will never have a vehicular fatality ever again. Totally set myself up for that one

:lol Love when gun nuts find a single example of something and it supposedly destroys your entire argument.

[Pavlov]

The idiocy of this comment is beyond comprehension tbh. Perhaps you should take a little time to think of all the policy you can push with this as your standard.Is this not the standard for a great deal of existing policy?

[Nathan89]

Alcohol as a variety of industrial uses, and is a way of concentrating and storing chemical energy.

The primary purpose of the product is not to harm others, and the harm is generally limited to self, which limits the moral argument substantially. Consumption of alcohol in moderate amounts has actually proven to have positive health impacts.

Preventing drunk driving is important. I am all for cars with sensors that disable themselves if the owner has been drinking.

If you argument is based on morals, define what standard you are using, as specifically as possible.

The primary purpose of guns is for protection, hunting, and fun. It's not to hurt people. That's you misguided narrative.

Innocent people die because of drunk drivers on a regular basis. 1/3rd of all traffic related deaths are caused by alcohol. I'm not sure the break down is for the driver vs other people. A far cry from the numbers seen in mass murders though. So no it doesn't change the moral argument at all.

Guns also have health benefits.

Hobbies have physical health benefits. Research has found that engaging in enjoyable activities during down time were associated with lower blood pressure, total cortisol, waist circumference, and body mass index. ... Hobbies are good for your mind and your body.

The standard that seems to be used by people that want to ban guns which is "save lives".

[Blake]

The primary purpose of guns is for protection, hunting, and fun. It's not to hurt people. That's you misguided narrative.

The fuck....? :lol

[Pavlov]

The fuck....? :lolHis primary reason for having a gun is killing people in the US armed forces guerrilla-style after all.

[Blake]

His primary reason for having a gun is killing people in the US armed forces guerrilla-style after all.

For fun!

[Nathan89]

Is this not the standard for a great deal of existing policy?

It's a factor. But no not really. We could ban alcohol to save many lives for example. We settle for some surrounding laws that will save some lives. Meanwhile he's willing to get rid of everything in the name of "saving lives".

He states he's willing to get rid of "X" if it "saves lives". Displaying his standard. He goes further by stating "My rights don't trump the safety and well being of millions". Which goes further about the idiocy of the statement. Then goes all the way to the shaming if you don't live by that standard with "My life doesn't revolve around a bottle the way yours revolves around :cry muh guns :cry".

"The government wants every citizen to wear a body cam. It will save lives. Come on guys we have to do it. :cry muh privacy:cry"

You can try to defend his idiocy if you want. But it's layered quite thick with each sentence that goes to the root of that perspective from a different angle.

[Pavlov]

It's a factor. But no not really.:lmao

[Nathan89]

His primary reason for having a gun is killing people in the US armed forces guerrilla-style after all.

That falls in the category of protection.

I've already stated even if you take everything about the government out the conversation I still wouldn't agree with you. Although that is the primary reason for guns. What's the primary reason for alcohol? Better be something important to justify the thousands of innocent lives it takes every year.

[Pavlov]

That falls in the category of protection.

I've already stated even if you take everything about the government out the conversation I still wouldn't agree with you. Although that is the primary reason for guns. What's the primary reason for alcohol? Better be something important to justify the thousands of innocent lives it takes every year.Yeah, you keep trying this but it isn't working.

[Nathan89]

:lmao

Try to dig a little deeper into someone's comment instead of taking clips and trying to shape a narrative on it. You are taking 7 words and laughing hysterically because you disagree with me. I quote some dude with 4 sentences stating his idiotic standard and how hard he believes it but you defend it because he's on your side. Very childish.

The dude clearly stated he's willing to get rid of "x" if it meets the standard of "saving lives". And you effectively defended that by blindly overlooking how fundamentally idiotic that is and asking a question to distract. The fact is that is a factor but it's not the end all be all that he and apparently you want it to be.

[Nathan89]

Yeah, you keep trying this but it isn't working.

Trying what?

[Blake]

Try to dig a little deeper into someone's comment instead of taking clips and trying to shape a narrative on it.

:cry but I posted a wall of text. Respect the wall :cry :cry

[monosylab1k]

The idiocy of this comment is beyond comprehension tbh. Perhaps you should take a little time to think of all the policy you can push with this as your standard.

Red lights and stop signs contribute to the greater good - SO FUCK EM! MAD MAX IN THIS MOTHERFUCKER!

[Pavlov]

Try to dig a little deeper into someone's comment instead of taking clips and trying to shape a narrative on it.No need when you completely contradict yourself right off the bat.

[Nathan89]

Red lights and stop signs contribute to the greater good - SO FUCK EM! MAD MAX IN THIS MOTHERFUCKER!

I stated it was a factor. He wants it to be everything and is willing to give up anything in the name of it. You idiotically defend that perspective.

[Nathan89]

No need when you completely contradict yourself right off the bat.

Incorrect. There was more too it which I went on to explain.

[Nathan89]

:cry but I posted a wall of text. Respect the wall :cry :cry

Hardly a wall of text.

[Pavlov]

Incorrect. There was more too it which I went on to explain.Then you shouldn't have pre-destroyed your argument.

[Nathan89]

Then you shouldn't have pre-destroyed your argument.

Your inability to look further than the surface is the reason we are even talking so I'm glad you learned something today.

[monosylab1k]

I stated it was a factor. He wants it to be everything and is willing to give up anything in the name of it. You idiotically defend that perspective.

Pilot training? PFFFFFFFT! Who gives a shit about regulations that contribute to safety? I’ll fly a fuckin plane if I want to, ain’t nobody gotta train me!

[Nathan89]

Pilot training? PFFFFFFFT! Who gives a shit about regulations that contribute to safety? I’ll fly a fuckin plane if I want to, ain’t nobody gotta train me!

Strawmen.

[Pavlov]

Your inability to look further than the surface is the reason we are even talking so I'm glad you learned something today.Your ability to pre-destroy your argument is the reason you're so easily dismissed.

[Pavlov]

Pilot training? PFFFFFFFT! Who gives a shit about regulations that contribute to safety? I’ll fly a fuckin plane if I want to, ain’t nobody gotta train me!I WILL SHOOT ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT WHO TRIES TO TAKE MY FLYING FREEDOM

[monosylab1k]

Strawmen.

Irony.

[Nathan89]

Irony.

No, he broke down his position quite well.

Meanwhile, after I stated that it was a factor you are pretending that I don't want it to be a factor at all.

[monosylab1k]

No, he broke down his position quite well.

Meanwhile, after I stated that it was a factor you are pretending that I don't want it to be a factor at all.

So it’s a factor when it’s convenient for your side of the argument. Gotcha.

[dbreiden83080]

https://im-01.gifer.com/5TNn.gif

[Brazil]

"I hate perspective."

That's fundamentally what you are complaining about.

:Lol agenda
:lol perspective
:lol faggot

[Chucho]

Self driving cars will do wonders regarding drunk driving deaths.

What do you call it when they hit someone, like the bicyclist recently hit by a self driving car?

[Pavlov]

What do you call it when they hit someone, like the bicyclist recently hit by a self driving car?I call it not a drunk driving death.

[RandomGuy]

The primary purpose of guns is for protection... It's not to hurt people.

How does a gun protect you? Be specific.

Step me through this one. Assume I don't know what guns are and describe the specific actions and what happens in "protection" situations in as much detail as possible.

[rjv]

a whole four pages dedicated to a false equivalence.

[RandomGuy]

Guns also have health benefits.

Hobbies have physical health benefits. Research has found that engaging in enjoyable activities during down time were associated with lower blood pressure, total cortisol, waist circumference, and body mass index. ... Hobbies are good for your mind and your body.



Hobbies, generally, provide some health benefits, insofar as they help with stress and enjoyment.

A moral standpoint however, the overall risks of death and injury have to be considered when looking at a population as a whole, and weighed against the harm.

Such things can be, are routinely are, quantified in a scientific setting.

One huge problem here though, is that there is no federally funded research on gun violence, due to restrictions put in place after lobbying for, wait for it, the gun manufacturing lobby, the NRA.

If you want to credibly make this argument, you will have to fund research into the health benefits of gun ownership.

Until then, it is an easily dismissed saw, and obviously spurious.

Do you think making bad arguments is an effective way to debate public policy?

[Nathan89]

Hobbies, generally, provide some health benefits, insofar as they help with stress and enjoyment.

A moral standpoint however, the overall risks of death and injury have to be considered when looking at a population as a whole, and weighed against the harm.

Such things can be, are routinely are, quantified in a scientific setting.

One huge problem here though, is that there is no federally funded research on gun violence, due to restrictions put in place after lobbying for, wait for it, the gun manufacturing lobby, the NRA.

If you want to credibly make this argument, you will have to fund research into the health benefits of gun ownership.

Until then, it is an easily dismissed saw, and obviously spurious.

Do you think making bad arguments is an effective way to debate public policy?

I just mentioned the high likelihood that it would because hobbies generally do and you agreed with that. It could be wrong but it's save to say that. It's a especially worth mentioning when you probably didn't even consider it when bringing up the health benefits to alcohol. So most likely guns have health benefits. You agree with that. That's worth bringing up in a discussion.

Sure the risk of death has to be considered but if you consider it then come to conclusion to ban guns then it's very inconsistent with many other products. Which ultimately means that the consideration wasn't based on the death and injury from guns. Which why you'll see Australia push policy on a insignificant amount of murders and be silent on 100's of drunk driving deaths that occur yearly.

[Blake]

I just mentioned the high likelihood that it would because hobbies generally do and you agreed with that.

Oh bomb building is healthy if it's a hobby. Neat.

[Blake]

So most likely guns have health benefits. You agree with that. That's worth bringing up in a discussion.

This is beyond retarded

[Nathan89]

How does a gun protect you? Be specific.

Step me through this one. Assume I don't know what guns are and describe the specific actions and what happens in "protection" situations in as much detail as possible.

You know good and well how guns protect someone. That doesn't mean hurting someone won't happen in the process which I think is what you want by explaining it to you like you are 5. The fact is the vast majority of guns are not bought to go hurt someone. They are in fact used for the purpose of protection. Hurting someone is a part of that protection. If I take self defense classes are you going to say that "I'm training to hurt people"? I doubt it even though hurting someone is a component of self defense. Therefore I conclude that statement is just a warped narrative.

[Nathan89]

This is beyond retarded

Save me the irrelevant comments, please.

[Nathan89]

Oh bomb building is healthy if it's a hobby. Neat.

Just because it's a hobby doesn't mean that it will be healthy. It's a likelihood that can be stated about most hobbies. Especially, when you hear people talk about said hobby as a stress relief, as being fun, making them feel powerful, knowing that the hobby makes them more active, connects them with friends, etc.

I don't know anyone that deals with bombs. I have no context for that hobby.

[RandomGuy]

I just mentioned the high likelihood that it would because hobbies generally do and you agreed with that. It could be wrong but it's save to say that. It's a especially worth mentioning when you probably didn't even consider it when bringing up the health benefits to alcohol. So most likely guns have health benefits. You agree with that. That's worth bringing up in a discussion.

Sure the risk of death has to be considered but if you consider it then come to conclusion to ban guns then it's very inconsistent with many other products. Which ultimately means that the consideration wasn't based on the death and injury from guns. Which why you'll see Australia push policy on a insignificant amount of murders and be silent on 100's of drunk driving deaths that occur yearly.


If you want to credibly make this argument, you will have to fund research into the health benefits of gun ownership.

Until then, it is an easily dismissed saw, and obviously spurious.

I said rather specifically I didn't. Feel free to provide proof that guns as a hobby specifically have ANY health benefit.

Then show a scientific study comparing this benefit to the population as a whole, to the deaths. Scientifically, statistically, it is very likely the harm will VASTLY outweigh any benefits, even if in evidence, simply due to the nature of using populations.

Such modest health benefits, even if youcould prove a link, are certainly minor, and occur far in the future, and ONLY to the people using them.
Deaths from firearms cut short lives by decades, and effect people who aren't using the product.

[ElNono]

It's about competing interests (state interest in safety vs personal freedom). Building the argument as black or white (ban or no ban) is disingenuous.

There's plenty of gray in between, and it's about finding a careful balance between the competing interests. This happen at every level where there are competing interests: alcohol, abortion, guns, free speech, search and seizure, etc.

Regulation is how you get to balance that, and we already have regulation in all those areas.

[RandomGuy]

Deaths from firearms cut short lives by decades, and effect people who aren't using the product.

That last bit there clips your moral argument out from under your feet when it comes to your flawed comparison to alcohol.

Gun violence affects others. Alcohol is a self-harm with some benefits.

To draw a moral equivalence is, therefore, rejected on that basis.

[RandomGuy]

It's about competing interests (state interest in safety vs personal freedom). Building the argument as black or white (ban or no ban) is disingenuous.

There's plenty of gray in between, and it's about finding a careful balance between the competing interests. This happen at every level where there are competing interests: alcohol, abortion, guns, free speech, search and seizure, etc.

Regulation is how you get to balance that, and we already have regulation in all those areas.

Fun thing about this is that the 2nd amendment doesn't really say what the NRA and the people who seem to worship guns with cult-like devotion, think it does.

"A well regulated militia".

You can't really be an originalist and support the gun manufacturing lobby's interpretation of the law.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman/

The founders did not mean for the 2nd to be an unrestricted right to own guns. They just... didnt'.

[ElNono]

Fun thing about this is that the 2nd amendment doesn't really say what the NRA and the people who seem to worship guns with cult-like devotion, think it does.

"A well regulated militia".

You can't really be an originalist and support the gun manufacturing lobby's interpretation of the law.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman/

The founders did not mean for the 2nd to be an unrestricted right to own guns. They just... didnt'.

Well, the SCOTUS already made clear the 2nd Amendment, much like the other amendments, are not beyond regulation, as long as it's 'reasonable'...

[Nathan89]

I said rather specifically I didn't. Feel free to provide proof that guns as a hobby specifically have ANY health benefit.

Then show a scientific study comparing this benefit to the population as a whole, to the deaths. Scientifically, statistically, it is very likely the harm will VASTLY outweigh any benefits, even if in evidence, simply due to the nature of using populations.

Such modest health benefits, even if youcould prove a link, are certainly minor, and occur far in the future, and ONLY to the people using them.
Deaths from firearms cut short lives by decades, and effect people who aren't using the product.

I read that just didn't focus in on it too much and focused on your general statement about hobbies. My bad.

The health benefits don't need to out weight the risk. The health benefits are merely a small factor and not that relevant to why guns should be legal. It's only a small factor and I'm fine basing it off of common sense. It's especially worth considering.

So like the health benefits of using alcohol.

Deaths from alcohol related accidents also cut lives short by decades, and effect people who aren't using the product. Which is what I've mention. Alcohol also plays a part in 1/3 acts of violent crime.

[Blake]

Save me the irrelevant comments, please.

Nobody thinks your comment that guns have health benefits is relevant.

It's retarded. So is this thread.

[Nathan89]

Nobody thinks your comment that guns have health benefits is relevant.

It's retarded. So is this thread.

It's relevant to the discussion. You can debate if it's true or not. Your one line shit takes serve no purpose.

[Blake]

It's relevant to the discussion. You can debate if it's true or not. Your one line shit takes serve no purpose.

This thread serves no purpose. It's stupid. I'm just here to lol at it and you.

[RandomGuy]

Well, the SCOTUS already made clear the 2nd Amendment, much like the other amendments, are not beyond regulation, as long as it's 'reasonable'...

Not really, and there is more than enough room for that to be revisited.

[spurraider21]

It's about competing interests (state interest in safety vs personal freedom). Building the argument as black or white (ban or no ban) is disingenuous.

There's plenty of gray in between, and it's about finding a careful balance between the competing interests. This happen at every level where there are competing interests: alcohol, abortion, guns, free speech, search and seizure, etc.

Regulation is how you get to balance that, and we already have regulation in all those areas.
no, no, dmc assured me that liberals are too pussy to say banning all guns is the only solution

[RandomGuy]

I read that just didn't focus in on it too much and focused on your general statement about hobbies. My bad.

The health benefits don't need to out weight the risk. The health benefits are merely a small factor and not that relevant to why guns should be legal. It's only a small factor and I'm fine basing it off of common sense. It's especially worth considering.

So like the health benefits of using alcohol.

Deaths from alcohol related accidents also cut lives short by decades, and effect people who aren't using the product. Which is what I've mention. Alcohol also plays a part in 1/3 acts of violent crime.

"deaths from alcohol related accidents"

SB:
"deaths from alcohol related vehicle accidents"

Again, not a valid comparison. If you want to make that argument, you should be arguing against personal vehicles as a whole, not just alcohol related ones. The line of logical reasoning should consider all vehicle deaths, not just alcohol related ones.

"alcohol contributes to violent crime, so let's talk about that instead of guns" :rollin You may not want to introduce that line of evidence councilor. I'll go there if you want.

Personally, I would be for getting rid of cars in general too, on the basis of the deaths caused.

[RandomGuy]

no, no, dmc assured me that liberals are too pussy to say banning all guns is the only solution

I think people should have a privilege to own a gun, just like they have a privilege to drive.

I am all for repealing and replacing the 2nd amendment to make that more clear.

Relying on guns as some sort of backstop against tyranny is for lazy shits who find it too hard to be informed, active voters.

[ElNono]

I think people should have a privilege to own a gun, just like they have a privilege to drive.

I am all for repealing and replacing the 2nd amendment to make that more clear.

Relying on guns as some sort of backstop against tyranny is for lazy shits who find it too hard to be informed, active voters.

That one isn't happening in the next 50+ years... probably easier to turn you into a conservative, tbh...

So, instead of aiming for the impossible, how about working towards reachable goals? As it's been said, it doesn't have to be all or nothing, there are, legally, many in-between avenues... you know, like the recent ban on bump stocks.

[Chucho]

Relying on guns as some sort of backstop against tyranny is for lazy shits who find it too hard to be informed, active voters.


LOL, yeah, because that worked out so well for us in '16.

[boutons_deux]

"the recent ban on bump stocks."

:lol which ban is total bullshit.

People will be 3D printing them rather than buying them.

and by the time they're banned, everybody who would want one will have bought one

:lol

[ElNono]

Certain people opt to be criminals all the time, tbh... that doesn't make proper regulations any less useful or useless... then it becomes an enforcement problem.

[sickdsm]

The irony is that gun control advocates also are likely to be the ones lapping up Hunger Games, Avatar, 1984, etc. type of media.



Totally unrelated yet related story, Local shooting range hasa makeshift bar there. Couple cases of beer in a fridge, put your dollar on top. I've only been there once shooting trap with a buddy that's huge into that. I mentioned to him about not a good idea to mix the two and he just said those old boys will never change. He's coaching a HS team this year there also.


Going to be a different world for some. That's for sure.

[sickdsm]

"the recent ban on bump stocks."

:lol which ban is total bullshit.

People will be 3D printing them rather than buying them.

and by the time they're banned, everybody who would want one will have bought one

:lol



Bump stocks are Bubba type attachments. I don't know any of those guys that have a 3d printer............

[Blake]

The irony is that gun control advocates also are likely to be the ones lapping up Hunger Games, Avatar, 1984, etc. type of media.

Lol sure they are.

I'm guessing you don't have a link

[sickdsm]

Lol sure they are.

I'm guessing you don't have a link

You're going to need a link to prove that those AARP, NRA white rural shooters are reading classic novels and are more interested in Hollywood than David Hogg? Really?

[Blake]

You're going to need a link to prove that those AARP, NRA white rural shooters are reading classic novels and are more interested in Hollywood than David Hogg? Really?

No need. We'll just say you're talking out of your ass and leave it there.

[sickdsm]

No need. We'll just say you're talking out of your ass and leave it there.

I asked you that question, way to deflect. Do you believe the typical NRA member is more likely to read George Orwell and watch those two movies than a gun control advocate?

[Blake]

I asked you that question, way to deflect. Do you believe the typical NRA member is more likely to read George Orwell and watch those two movies than a gun control advocate?

I don't give a shit. It's your claim. If you feel like backing it up, good for you. If you don't, then we'll just assume ass talking.

That's how that works.

[sickdsm]

I don't give a shit. It's your claim. If you feel like backing it up, good for you. If you don't, then we'll just assume ass talking.

That's how that works.

Too much of a Cuck to doubt the claim but you require a Google look to verify?

[Blake]

Lol your claim sounds like a crock of bullshit. It stays that way unless you back it up. Again, that's how claims work.

If you don't want to back it up, I'll just assume it's shit. Either way I really don't give much of a shit.

[sickdsm]

Lol your claim sounds like a crock of bullshit. It stays that way unless you back it up. Again, that's how claims work.

If you don't want to back it up, I'll just assume it's shit. Either way I really don't give much of a shit.
So you disagree then? What's your reasoning?

[CosmicCowboy]

The irony is that gun control advocates also are likely to be the ones lapping up Hunger Games, Avatar, 1984, etc. type of media.



Totally unrelated yet related story, Local shooting range hasa makeshift bar there. Couple cases of beer in a fridge, put your dollar on top. I've only been there once shooting trap with a buddy that's huge into that. I mentioned to him about not a good idea to mix the two and he just said those old boys will never change. He's coaching a HS team this year there also.


Going to be a different world for some. That's for sure.

On your topic of guns/alcohol at ranges it is gradually changing. I have done dozens of charity sporting clay shoots over the years and in the past few years its been frowned on to drink before shooting. In the old days it was just assumed there would be an ice chest in the cart.

[Blake]

So you disagree then? What's your reasoning?

I don't agree or disagree. I just doubt it. It looks like complete ass talking.

[johnsmith]

Jesus Christ....I didn’t read this whole thread because I read it every day on Facebook....same joke....over and over and over and over again.