Alcohol deaths vs. gun deaths

DS1119

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Everone here could drive a Geo Metro for a car. It would suffice for transportation. And yet we sell cars that drive in excess of 200 mph. Why? Someone can't drive them anywhere but a closed course to reach their full potential.

absolutely agree. I've stated this to people countless times. I don't get it. why do vehicles for the general public have that speed capability? they shouldn't. it just goes to prove the point that humans are too stupid and irresponsible to possess such power.

guns and death penalty included.

So what you're saying is the general public is too stupid to possess these things but somehow the elected officials out of that same general stupid population is smart enough to regulate or restrict them?

Byrnzie

DS1119 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Everone here could drive a Geo Metro for a car. It would suffice for transportation. And yet we sell cars that drive in excess of 200 mph. Why? Someone can't drive them anywhere but a closed course to reach their full potential.

absolutely agree. I've stated this to people countless times. I don't get it. why do vehicles for the general public have that speed capability? they shouldn't. it just goes to prove the point that humans are too stupid and irresponsible to possess such power.

guns and death penalty included.

So what you're saying is the general public is too stupid to possess these things but somehow the elected officials out of that same general stupid population is smart enough to regulate or restrict them?

No, that's not what he's saying at all. Although you already know this.

DS1119

Byrnzie wrote:

So what you're saying is the general public is too stupid to possess these things but somehow the elected officials out of that same general stupid population is smart enough to regulate or restrict them?

No, that's not what he's saying at all. Although you already know this.[/quote]


That's the way I read it. I mean if "humans are too stupid and irresponsible to possess such power"...the elected officials out of that same human population must be too stupid as well. How do you read it?

DS1119

Must make your mom and dad proud. Biggest night for DWI sweeps and you still can't get it right. Put the idiot in jail. :fp:


http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/c ... 02314.html

push me and i will resist

DS1119 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Everone here could drive a Geo Metro for a car. It would suffice for transportation. And yet we sell cars that drive in excess of 200 mph. Why? Someone can't drive them anywhere but a closed course to reach their full potential.

absolutely agree. I've stated this to people countless times. I don't get it. why do vehicles for the general public have that speed capability? they shouldn't. it just goes to prove the point that humans are too stupid and irresponsible to possess such power.

guns and death penalty included.

So what you're saying is the general public is too stupid to possess these things but somehow the elected officials out of that same general stupid population is smart enough to regulate or restrict them?

NO. You said that, you seem to put words in people's mouths and flip the story around to suit your argument.
That's what I see after reading this entire thread.

If I'm wrong I apologize.

DS1119

push me and i will resist wrote:

NO. You said that, you seem to put words in people's mouths and flip the story around to suit your argument.
That's what I see after reading this entire thread.

If I'm wrong I apologize.

Absolutley not. That's not my post. It's someone else's. If someone says we as a human race are too stupid to possess these items...who deems us too stupid? I guess it's people out of that same stupid human population....correct? Unless it's God or some aliens doing it I don't know who else it could be. :? So we as a general stupid human population elect officals out of our own stupid human population to tell us as stupid humans what we should or should not possess. :fp:

push me and i will resist

DS1119 wrote:

push me and i will resist wrote:

NO. You said that, you seem to put words in people's mouths and flip the story around to suit your argument.
That's what I see after reading this entire thread.

If I'm wrong I apologize.

Absolutley not. That's not my post. It's someone else's. If someone says we as a human race are too stupid to possess these items...who deems us too stupid? I guess it's people out of that same stupid human population....correct? Unless it's God or some aliens doing it I don't know who else it could be. :? So we as a general stupid human population elect officals out of our own stupid human population to tell us as stupid humans what we should or should not possess. :fp:

I tend to agree with this statement.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

oh, and by the way.....if you insist on this ridiculous notion of guns and alcohol, alcohol has regulations too. age restrictions, alcohol by volume restrictions, time and day of purchase, etc.

so if we restrict the alcohol by volume, then it can be surmised it would make sense to restrict ammunition by power.

MotoDC

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

oh, and by the way.....if you insist on this ridiculous notion of guns and alcohol, alcohol has regulations too. age restrictions, alcohol by volume restrictions, time and day of purchase, etc.

so if we restrict the alcohol by volume, then it can be surmised it would make sense to restrict ammunition by power.

Thank God abv restrictions are by state and I can get good beer in my home state. But that's probably for another thread :beer:

fortyshades

dimitrispearljam wrote:

we can make 1 millions thread like this..
guns vs heart attacks.
guns vs attack by aliens
guns vs fires
guns vs cars
guns vs sharks
guns vs drugs
guns vs angry housewifes
etc..

people die every day..

but guns ..made for kill..and only kill...no good to this shit

:thumbup:

I like the guns vs angry housewives. You forget the husbands though!

This is getting silly. I counted 15 posts about gun control. It is simple: you want to have a gun, you register. You do some tests and start shooting beer cans in your backyard. That is all you will ever do for there will not be a big revolution or an overnight dictatorship. If you don't register the question will be: why not? (And don't come with the liberty BS; you need a driver license to drive don't you?) What do you have to hide? And if don't pass the psychological tests, well, you shouldn't have a gun. Nobody will take your (in the voice of Gollum) "little shiny precious" away.

DS1119

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

oh, and by the way.....if you insist on this ridiculous notion of guns and alcohol, alcohol has regulations too. age restrictions, alcohol by volume restrictions, time and day of purchase, etc.

so if we restrict the alcohol by volume, then it can be surmised it would make sense to restrict ammunition by power.

Well lets just say that comparing guns, alcohol, and tobacco isn't ridiculous. I will point you to a certain government agency in the US. It's known as the ATF...or The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Here's the link in case you haven't heard of it.

http://www.atf.gov/

And limiting alcohol by volume....I can still buy legally produced grain alcohol in the US which is almost 100 percent alcohol. As long as I'm not drunk I can still purchase as much of any type of alcohol I want in the US. As far as day and time issues...those are state by state...laws based on religoun...and you have already made it clear here on how you feel about religion so why would you bring this up now especially as far as government regulations? :? Btw, there are age restrictions on purchasing a weapon as well.

dimitrispearljam

fortyshades wrote:

This is getting silly. .

is already silly Tony...have a good day at one of my favo towns of all times..hope will visit you soon..

DS1119

dimitrispearljam wrote:

fortyshades wrote:

This is getting silly. .

is already silly Tony...have a good day at one of my favo towns of all times..hope will visit you soon..

It is silly. People thinking they will solve crime and the acts of a ridiculously small number of nutjobs by punishing the innocent is silly.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

DS1119 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

oh, and by the way.....if you insist on this ridiculous notion of guns and alcohol, alcohol has regulations too. age restrictions, alcohol by volume restrictions, time and day of purchase, etc.

so if we restrict the alcohol by volume, then it can be surmised it would make sense to restrict ammunition by power.

Well lets just say that comparing guns, alcohol, and tobacco isn't ridiculous. I will point you to a certain government agency in the US. It's known as the ATF...or The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Here's the link in case you haven't heard of it.

http://www.atf.gov/

And limiting alcohol by volume....I can still buy legally produced grain alcohol in the US which is almost 100 percent alcohol. As long as I'm not drunk I can still purchase as much of any type of alcohol I want in the US. As far as day and time issues...those are state by state...laws based on religoun...and you have already made it clear here on how you feel about religion so why would you bring this up now especially as far as government regulations? :? Btw, there are age restrictions on purchasing a weapon as well.

yes, thanks, I've heard of the ATF. An agency built around 3 things that need to be REGULATED.

Feel about religion? Please, educate us all on how I "feel about religion", son. :roll:

Some laws are based on religion, of course. But religion is based on humanity's moral compass. So your point is moot. So I have no issue with laws based in religion because those laws would have come with or without religion.

This is what this has come to? you have to deflect the discussion AGAIN to a different topic?

DS1119

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

oh, and by the way.....if you insist on this ridiculous notion of guns and alcohol, alcohol has regulations too. age restrictions, alcohol by volume restrictions, time and day of purchase, etc.

so if we restrict the alcohol by volume, then it can be surmised it would make sense to restrict ammunition by power.

Well lets just say that comparing guns, alcohol, and tobacco isn't ridiculous. I will point you to a certain government agency in the US. It's known as the ATF...or The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Here's the link in case you haven't heard of it.

http://www.atf.gov/

And limiting alcohol by volume....I can still buy legally produced grain alcohol in the US which is almost 100 percent alcohol. As long as I'm not drunk I can still purchase as much of any type of alcohol I want in the US. As far as day and time issues...those are state by state...laws based on religoun...and you have already made it clear here on how you feel about religion so why would you bring this up now especially as far as government regulations? :? Btw, there are age restrictions on purchasing a weapon as well.

yes, thanks, I've heard of the ATF. An agency built around 3 things that need to be REGULATED.

Feel about religion? Please, educate us all on how I "feel about religion", son. :roll:

Some laws are based on religion, of course. But religion is based on humanity's moral compass. So your point is moot. So I have no issue with laws based in religion because those laws would have come with or without religion.

This is what this has come to? you have to deflect the discussion AGAIN to a different topic?

You're feelings about religion? I think I need to just direct you to the numerous posts about religion on this board you posted. :? Also, please don't disrespect me any further by calling me son. And so you know....guns are regulated already by the US government. Legislate and find the illegal ones...not the legal ones.

gimmesometruth27

to anyone out there who is still comparing gun deaths to alcohol and automobile deaths, i challenge you to go hunting this weekend with a case of beer and a car and tell me that that is the same thing as hunting with a gun.

dimitrispearljam

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

to anyone out there who is still comparing gun deaths to alcohol and automobile deaths, i challenge you to go hunting this weekend with a case of beer and a car and tell me that that is the same thing as hunting with a gun.

you wasting your time....dont get in this idiotic thought..

bootlegger10

dimitrispearljam wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

to anyone out there who is still comparing gun deaths to alcohol and automobile deaths, i challenge you to go hunting this weekend with a case of beer and a car and tell me that that is the same thing as hunting with a gun.

you wasting your time....dont get in this idiotic thought..

It is not a question at all of what is more likely to kill. I agree alcohol is not meant to kil. Guns are meant to at least injure or kill. We are in agreement.

Here is the deal though, alcohol is responsible for more deaths and destruction to lives in the country than guns. If we banned alcohol and guns, more lives would be saved banning alcohol than banning guns. Yet, no one wants to give up alcohol even though it serves no legitimate necessity of life.

This isn't some radical discussion that we should be called idiots for talking about. It is fact. Alcohol kills more people and destroys more lives than guns in this country. Alcohol serves no necessary purpose. Yet there almost zero calls to banning alcohol when it could save lives.

Again, vehicles serve a necessary purpose in life. Alcohol doesn't. That is the difference.

bootlegger10

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

to anyone out there who is still comparing gun deaths to alcohol and automobile deaths, i challenge you to go hunting this weekend with a case of beer and a car and tell me that that is the same thing as hunting with a gun.

You don't need alcohol to survive. You could live out the rest of your days without a drop of alcohol. Alcohol is directly and indirectly related to more deaths and destruction in the US than guns.

So why aren't you attacking alcohol? I can understand attacking guns, and I'm okay with that. But to not attack something that creates more death than guns and serves no purpose in life is strange. How do you reconcile this?

Cars serve a purpose. We don't live on farms anymore where we live and work within a mile of each other. Alcohol serves no purpose other than to create a buzz.

dimitrispearljam

bootlegger10 wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

to anyone out there who is still comparing gun deaths to alcohol and automobile deaths, i challenge you to go hunting this weekend with a case of beer and a car and tell me that that is the same thing as hunting with a gun.

you wasting your time....dont get in this idiotic thought..

It is not a question at all of what is more likely to kill. I agree alcohol is not meant to kil. Guns are meant to at least injure or kill. We are in agreement.

Here is the deal though, alcohol is responsible for more deaths and destruction to lives in the country than guns. If we banned alcohol and guns, more lives would be saved then banning guns. Yet, no one wants to give up alcohol even though it serves no legitimate necessity of life.

This isn't some radical discussion that we should be called idiots for talking about. It is fact. Alcohol kills more people and destroys more lives than guns in this country. Alcohol serves no necessary purpose. Yet there almost zero calls to banning alcohol when it could save lives.

Again, vehicles serve a necessary purpose in life. Alcohol doesn't. That is the difference.

no one called idiots anyone...
the thought compare those 2 is idiotic...
alchohol wasnt made to kill....if you use it wrong or too much and if you drive after that use maybe will kill..dont have to mention,alchohol is number 1 need to medicine..
guns made for kill and for nothing else...