Friends in Las Vegas, please check in.

[MrFanti]

Arguing that alcohol is also harmful doesn't really suggest guns are not. .

So when I filter out the BS, what you're essentially saying is this:

"Don't take away MY alcohol - I don't care how many innocent people have to die, I want to drink!"...

[MrFanti]

Alcohol is actually regulated to try to reduce these risks, which is what sensible people are proposing to do with guns. Most obviously, it's illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol, which is one of the main causes of alcohol-related deaths. There's also a bunch of restrictions on the sale of alcohol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

And guns are regulated too. Yet regulated guns and alcohol both cause unnecessary deaths.
So are you ready to stand up for lives and move to ban both or are you going to stay hypocritical so you can enjoy your beverages - while a few innocent people get killed by drunk drivers tonight, or a few people die from alcohol induced cirrohsis of the liver?

[MrFanti]

Every day, 28 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This is one death every 51 minutes.1 The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $44 billion.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafe...factsheet.html

And what's incredible is that some folks around here want to ban guns but DON'T want to ban alcohol - this is hypocrisy defined - and they call themselves "sane" too!

[filghy2]

And guns are regulated too. Yet regulated guns and alcohol both cause unnecessary deaths.
So are you ready to stand up for lives and move to ban both or are you going to stay hypocritical so you can enjoy your beverages - while a few innocent people get killed by drunk drivers tonight, or a few people die from alcohol induced cirrohsis of the liver?

Spare us the crocodile tears. It's obvious you are just using one of the gun lobby's classic diversionary tactics. The merits of more regulation of guns don't depend on the merits of more regulation of alcohol (or vice versa).

[filghy2]

And guns are regulated too. Yet regulated guns and alcohol both cause unnecessary deaths.

Guns are barely regulated at all in the US, mainly because the NRA has lobbied strongly against any efforts to make regulation effective. From what I've read, Stephen Paddock may not even have broken any laws in acquiring his arsenal. In any case, the fact that regulation is not effective is not an argument for not having any. The fact that people still get killed by drunk drivers does not mean we would be safer without any drink-driving laws.

There is also a big difference between people choosing to harm their own health, which we don't normally regulate, and people harming others. The inherent purpose of a gun is to inflict or threaten harm, which is not the case with alcohol.

[Aticus100]

Mr Fanti, to be fair you have well and truly called out here on you attempt to feign concern for the mis-use of drink or drugs to justify owning a gun.

If you want a gun, at least just stand up say “fuck it, I just want one”

There is no comparison to be made between gun deaths and drink/drug/car/horse riding/lawn mowing/ whatever the fuck deaths.

A death by these other means is an accident caused by mid-use.

A gun death is not mis-use. It is as a result of the gun being used for the only purpose it was designed.

[peejaye]

Yep the data is out there. Alcohol kills way more Americans than guns do...
http://www.simplefactsplainarguments...than-guns.html

So those "sane" folks that say guns should banned logically should also be advocating for the ban of alcohol too!

Unbelievable! Thank fuck I live 4,500 miles away from you!

[broncofan]

So when I filter out the BS, what you're essentially saying is this:

"Don't take away MY alcohol - I don't care how many innocent people have to die, I want to drink!"...

The very next sentence of my post said that neither alcohol nor guns should be banned but both should be regulated. In the politics forum I discuss how guns can be regulated, even according to Scalia, without violating the second amendment. In addition to constant strawman arguments you also seem to change the subject repeatedly, in a way that is similar in spirit to the tu quoque fallacy.

Let me help you out. What about nuclear disarmament? Why regulate guns when there's still the possibility of a nuclear war which would kill millions of people? You've been awfully silent on that. What about heart disease? Every year people die of heart disease which could be prevented by more exercise. You seem more concerned about guns than preventing heart disease. What about ebola? If it spreads, it could kill everyone and you don't have nearly the interest in that as you do in guns.

Ultimately it just looks like childish excuse making. But I'm glad you admit that it seems a little funny to argue that guns make people safer when more than twice as many people accidentally kill someone as intentionally kill a bad guy. So for every time someone saves the day with their handgun, two little kids accidentally get shot, or some other nightmare scenario. For every bad guy a private citizen shoots, there are nearly forty murders...

[peejaye]

BINGO!!!
It's the INSANE person - not the weapon that commits the crime!

Thanks again for confirming this!

I'm sure Stephen Paddock, as a successful accountant, was very sane when he bought his Arsenal of weapons!
You never heard of mental health?

[Aticus100]

I'm sure Stephen Paddock, as a successful accountant, was very sane when he bought his Arsenal of weapons!
You never heard of mental health?

Exactly. This is what makes the whole “the best defence against a bad guy with a gun is a good with a gun” such nonsense.

Everyone who has a gun thinks they are a good guy with a gun, right up to the point they start shooting innocent people.