I've caught a few and blocked a few, but having a law against assault (which we do) is not the same as banning the consumption of alcohol.You then must have never been on the recieving end of a drunken fist.
I've caught a few and blocked a few, but having a law against assault (which we do) is not the same as banning the consumption of alcohol.You then must have never been on the recieving end of a drunken fist.
A huge percentage of murders and incidents of child abuse and domestic violence are directly related to alcohol use. And the "ban" on drunk driving does not change the fact that far more people die as a result of drunk driving than from guns.
[/COLOR]
Hey genius...try reading comprehension or did you fail that part of school but got good grades in alcohol abuse. Go re-read Sober's post...
Notice he did not say alcohol realted collisions. Im sure i dont have to explain any further but if you need more im sure Sober can explain to you better.
I've caught a few and blocked a few, but having a law against assault (which we do) is not the same as banning the consumption of alcohol.
Absolutely. Drinking someone else to death is not the same as beating someone else to death. For starters, the latter doesn't require alcohol and it's already against the law.If that drunken fist had not been blocked and was repeated enough times do you think you could still make the statement of "never hearing of a person drinking some one else to death"?
Seriously? Are you intentionally being obtuse or did you really not understand the point Cache was trying to make?Absolutely. Drinking someone else to death is not the same as beating someone else to death. For starters, the latter doesn't require alcohol and it's already against the law.
Absolutely. Drinking someone else to death is not the same as beating someone else to death. For starters, the latter doesn't require alcohol and it's already against the law.
A huge percentage of murders and incidents of child abuse and domestic violence are directly related to alcohol use. And the "ban" on drunk driving does not change the fact that far more people die as a result of drunk driving than from guns.
I'm not advocating prohibition. I am advocating the freedom to make personal choices.
If that drunken fist had not been blocked and was repeated enough times do you think you could still make the statement of "never hearing of a person drinking some one else to death"?
Absolutely. Drinking someone else to death is not the same as beating someone else to death. For starters, the latter doesn't require alcohol and it's already against the law.
Seriously? Are you intentionally being obtuse or did you really not understand the point Cache was trying to make?
No I'm not being obtuse. I'm saying that getting drunk does not = assault. If someone hits you that's assault, whether they were drunk or not. They didn't "drink you to death".Seriously? Are you intentionally being obtuse or did you really not understand the point Cache was trying to make?
And that's the point. Assault is assault, whether drunk or not. It doesn't become something different based on whether or not the person is drinking.Funny, the people beaten to death by the drunks didn`t know the difference.
The words may not have been exactly right but the intent was clear to me.No I'm not being obtuse. I'm saying that getting drunk does not = assault. If someone hits you that's assault, whether they were drunk or not. They didn't "drink you to death".
I agree that arguments based on statistics, analogies, etc are not good arguments and that's why I prefer to avoid them because they can be turned around on you. To me the strongest argument for private gun ownership has always been one that is based on individual rights, and it's the only one that really needs to be made.Those who wish to ban or severely restrict gun rights like to use statistics to make the argument that the overall cost to society (murders, accidental deaths, crimes etc.) of allowing gun ownership outweighs the benefits.
I only brought up the subject of alcohol to point out that, using those same statistics, one could make an equally valid argument that alcohol should be banned or subjected to the same silly regulations and restrictions that the Kleins of the world would impose upon gun owners.
I find it both amusing and a bit hypocritical that Klein and those like him would love nothing more than to regulate how many or what kind of guns that I own, or how I should store them, or how many bullets I should be allowed to load in each magazine....but when I turn their argument around by proposing that the same sort of restrictions be placed upon the alcohol that they choose to drink, they would get all upset at the thought of their "rights" being taken away.
You might want to do research before you post things like that :
In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in alcohol-related collisions.
In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day. (Source: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;
]
And whats worse ? A drunk with a fist (car) or a drunk with a gun ?