Happiness is a warm gun

[broncofan]

Let's accept for the sake of argument your premise that action on guns should be linked to action on alcohol. Drunk-driving is illegal already and you've admitted previously that you do not favour banning alcohol. But as you care so much about alcohol-related deaths then you must have some ideas. How about you tell us what measures you propose to reduce alcohol-related deaths and what restrictions on guns you would be prepared to accept in return?

We've gone long enough without giving you a fair response. Your view that guns are dangerous and that alcohol is no more dangerous than filtered water is not logical. You've ignored the evidence that drunk driving kills people and believe that guns shoot themselves which is just as absurd. Also marijuana. And nicotine. And lawn darts. Hypocrite.

[broncofan]

Let's accept for the sake of argument your premise that action on guns should be linked to action on alcohol. Drunk-driving is illegal already and you've admitted previously that you do not favour banning alcohol. But as you care so much about alcohol-related deaths then you must have some ideas. How about you tell us what measures you propose to reduce alcohol-related deaths and what restrictions on guns you would be prepared to accept in return?

The last post probably resembles Mr. Fanti's actual posts too much to be effective satire. What you and I and Trish and others have proven is that there are many ways to make the same point and get the same wooden response that ignores it. Both guns and alcohol should be regulated. Both present public health hazards and to the extent those hazards can reasonably be mitigated they should be.

At this point I would be happy if Mr. Fanti would just summarize our two posts on the last page to show he understands them. This sort of exercise in summarizing your opponent's argument can be useful.

I will summarize Mr. Fanti's argument to the extent I understand it: "You want to ban guns but don't have any problem with alcohol, which means you're a hypocrite, and also makes the case that guns should not be banned or even regulated." The rebuttals have been: First, we don't want to ban guns. Second, we don't think alcohol should be unregulated and are not opposed to continued and additional regulation if you can propose useful regulations. Third, the claims don't depend on one another so it's not logical to argue that if alcohol is not adequately regulated then guns are. Even if we were hypocritical, which the first two points make clear we're not, the third point would not have logical support.

[buttslinger]

Miracles can happen
Whatever they did to cigarettes worked like a damn charm, it seems like nobody smokes now.
Just the hard core who will give anything for a butt.

[broncofan]

Miracles can happen
Whatever they did to cigarettes worked like a damn charm, it seems like nobody smokes now.
Just the hard core who will give anything for a butt.

Everyone has known someone with end stage lung disease. Some of the risks are caused by second hand smoke but a lot of the harm is borne by the smoker. People didn't have to quit out of consideration for society's collective health but could be convinced that they were going to die a horrible death if they continued.

You can probably convince a smoker that they stand a good chance of getting cancer but you'll never convince a gun owner that he's not a hero in the making or that he's more likely to shoot himself than a criminal. Every gun owner sees the legislation as aimed at other people who are the loose cannons or unsafe. Even if you can convince gun owners there's a collective safety issue, most still see themselves as the victims of gun legislation because they personally are not the risks.

[filghy2]

You can probably convince a smoker that they stand a good chance of getting cancer but you'll never convince a gun owner that he's not a hero in the making or that he's more likely to shoot himself than a criminal. Every gun owner sees the legislation as aimed at other people who are the loose cannons or unsafe. Even if you can convince gun owners there's a collective safety issue, most still see themselves as the victims of gun legislation because they personally are not the risks.

You may be right, but it's notable that such attitudes are restricted largely to the US and not shared by other countries. That suggests that these attitudes are socially-conditioned and can change under the right circumstances. Overt racial and sexual discrimination used to be accepted as natural, but that changed over 1-2 generations, even among the majority of white men who were not adversely affected by it. The big problem in the US is that attitudes to guns have become a marker of tribal identity on the right.

[broncofan]

You may be right, but it's notable that such attitudes are restricted largely to the US and not shared by other countries. That suggests that these attitudes are socially-conditioned and can change under the right circumstances. Overt racial and sexual discrimination used to be accepted as natural, but that changed over 1-2 generations, even among the majority of white men who were not adversely affected by it. The big problem in the US is that attitudes to guns have become a marker of tribal identity on the right.

I see your point. The first time I had a conversation with someone who was really attached to guns, I remembered thinking to myself "is this person an adult?" I think the examples of racism and sexual discrimination are good ones because racists and sexists held their views strongly and were impervious to evidence. There was enough of a sea change in attitudes that political solutions could be imposed on the dissenters. But we have to remember that even over the issue of race we fought a bloody war, we had a segregated society, and large scale disenfranchisement that has really been gradually eroded.

I don't want to be a pessimist but we can't even get people to attribute the effects of gun ownership to guns. But with most things, we do end up moving in the right direction. If you look at gay marriage, we went from it being a radical idea to it being a protected right in twenty years....but it depends where we're measuring from. If we look at the arc in the gun control movement, I wonder where we are.

[MrFanti]

DRUNK DRIVER KILLS FATHER AND DAUGHTER IN HEAD-ON CRASH NEAR ARAD

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Tw...y-night-378668

Keep on telling yourselves that alcohol is fine and guns are bad....
Of course alcoholics and people that can't live without their drinks have distorted a view about the facts of alcohol vs gun deaths.

[MrFanti]

Mother was driving drunk when Hart family SUV plunged into ocean, police say

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-ocean-n865921

Thankfully, your folks opinions are easily disputed by facts.....

[filghy2]

Still awaiting your response to this question Fanti:
How about you tell us what measures you propose to reduce alcohol-related deaths and what restrictions on guns you would be prepared to accept in return?

[trish]

Still awaiting your response to this question Fanti:
How about you tell us what measures you propose to reduce alcohol-related deaths and what restrictions on guns you would be prepared to accept in return?

He's too stupid to understand your question. I bet he thinks he's answered it.