View Poll Results: Should we propose further alcohol control?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 11.76%
  • No

    23 67.65%
  • Other

    7 20.59%
Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 178

Thread: Time for Alcohol Control?

  1. #151
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    You know, or should know that this is NOT true.
    The mother of the mass murderer is a good case in point.
    People who care about others can do a lot...
    She may have lived in fear of her own son...
    Where was the father ?
    Its called families....communities....society....easier in the cities where people are so close....out in the country there can be KKK rallies and only the cows would be bothered
    Well, we're going to disagree.
    What you think is "good" legislation, I do not.


    I don't know what you're getting at with KKK rallies or whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  2. #152
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,194

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    They should allow teachers to have alcohol in schools. Pilots should be able to have alcohol in the cockpit. If everyone had alcohol then there would be less alcohol related deaths.

    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  3. #153
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,572

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorgasm View Post
    They should allow teachers to have alcohol in schools. Pilots should be able to have alcohol in the cockpit. If everyone had alcohol then there would be less alcohol related deaths.

    That argument might work when alcohol gets used to fend off attackers.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  4. #154
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    That argument might work when alcohol gets used to fend off attackers.
    Anything over 100? proof + a lighter.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  5. #155
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorgasm View Post
    They should allow teachers to have alcohol in schools. Pilots should be able to have alcohol in the cockpit. If everyone had alcohol then there would be less alcohol related deaths.

    Isn't the former already true?
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #156
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertzz View Post
    To those that are arguing that "gun control" and "alcohol control" are too different to compare, I ask: In what ways are they different? The similarities are clear enough: unregulated, both cause deaths.

    People are not so evil as a whole to choose to kill other people more often than accidentally kill people, as evidenced by the fact that the number of alcohol related deaths is 2.5x's the amount of gun-related deaths annually (Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year - Health - Addictions | NBC News vs How many gun deaths are in the US every year)

    Also factoring in the fact that only 47% of Americans own guns (Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993) while 67% of Americans drink (U.S. Drinking Rate Edges Up Slightly to 25-Year High), reduces the cause of death per capita death ratio from 2.5x's to 1.75x's. In short, alcohol is 1.75x's more likely to kill than gun ownership. (not including unreported gun ownership - which would likely significantly increase the death per capita ratio of alcohol killing more than gun-owners as so many gun-related deaths are homicides from weapons retrieved illegally)

    Why are so many for regulating guns more, but not alcohol when alcohol is more harmful to society? I believe I know the answer: It's similar to how if a Hurricane kills 6,000 people, that's a tragedy which we will mourn for half of a generation. If an act of terror kills 3,000 people (9/11), it will be mourned by the nation for possibly centuries. Acts of intent are psychologically more damaging to the people. All other arguments aside regarding whether regulating guns will increase or decrease crime statistics, I ask those that are for regulating guns, but oppose regulating alcohol: Is it because of safety or because of your personal psychological comfort that you wish to regulate guns? I ask that you put the facts before you and instead of making an emotional decision to regulate guns but not alcohol, see that the terror is just as real in both cases.

    Alcohol induced deaths are more of a threat to this nation; Our willingness to accept them as a part of our society is our willingness to stand up for freedom. If you're willing to undermine those freedoms for a cause less damaging, you are giving up your ground to stand on for freedoms more damaging, such as alcohol. I only suggest you consider other options other than government regulations to give your mind peace. That other option for me is gun-ownership. I have a lot of peace of mind having a gun very near me while I sleep.
    Both are dangerous, one more than the other, but, IMO, this matters not.
    To do nothing, out of fear of the alcohol lobby or the NRA, is criminal.
    In PA we have our state stores and our police....this is our control.
    But, we need 100% gun control...NOT with loopholes large enough for the Queen Elizabeth to sail thru..
    Its a poor/weak argument when natural disasters are introduced...Lets limit this to things that can be controlled, alcohol and guns.
    We have lawmakers, I think.
    There job is to make laws as necessary.

  7. #157
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,194

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    That argument might work when alcohol gets used to fend off attackers.
    That's why this thread fails.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  8. #158
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I actually varies from state to state
    I know, which is why I made a comparison on the number of states that allow rather than a general statement about what is or is not allowed. Many more states allow the gun than the alcohol.

    That is not clear either, in fact I think open carry is more restricted than conceal carry, again though, it's different from place to place.
    Open carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Again, the statement I made was clear. "More" being the key word.

    Also, Open carry is but one half of the equation.

    Not entirely true either.
    It is entirely true. I CAN sell firearms from my personal collection, I CANNOT sell alcohol from my personal collection. The statement is not dependent on the way that the sale took place, just the fact that such as sale CAN take place.

    It's important to debate the point being made, not the point you wish was made. The last three quote were not about my statements, but about what you wish my statements had been instead of what they were.



    Of course, but I think you've missed the other regulations involved in firearms sales.
    Does the seller of alcohol have to keep a bound book of all sales?
    Yes, for tax purposes. Alcohol is taxed differently, thus they have to keep inventory of their sales. Now, it's not in a bound book, of course, but it's the exact same activity.

    If an FFL does not perform the legally mandated checks and keep a bound book of all sales, that's a felony/multiple felonies.
    Good. The right to deal firearms is not protected by the 2nd. Keep and bear, not have a business selling them. And if the alcohol merchant does not keep track of their sales they can be charged with multiple felonies for tax evasion.

    The issue being discussed, however, was what the purchaser is subjected to, not what the merchant is required to do. The merchant is liable if they do not perform the checks, but the purchaser is the one subjected to the checks.



    Yes but there are laws in effect that ban the type of firearm one can own, in many jurisdictions.
    That's what McDonald v. Chicago ended, actually. That decision ended such ban in Chicago by incorporating the 2nd to the states.

    So while there isn't a complete ban on firearms in all municipalities, there are laws restricting the sales and possession which can closely resemble such.
    Sale by an authorized firearm dealer, yes, and that is fine since the second makes no mention of a right to sell, but individuals can still sell from their own personal collection, provided they don't try to make it a business (something one cannot legally do with their alcohol).

    Incorporation of the 2nd, however, makes restrictions on owning a gun in your home illegal, however. Now, one might say that they've gotten around this by doing sketchy things with regard to taxes, and they have, but these are not really restrictions, despite the fact that they can be very restrictive. This is no different than what is done with alcohol and tobacco, however.


    Well to a degree, I would agree with you, in others I would not.
    States and localities still have broad powers in which to deal with firearms.
    Many do like, Maryland, DC, California, Mass., Hawaii, etc.
    Not that broad after the incorporation of the 2nd.

    Firearm laws are not universal for every state.
    No, of course not, but there are some permissive universals which do not exist for alcohol (alcohol's universals are all restrictive in nature).

    Federally is has to be dealth with, because it is supposed to be a right, which constantly get altered.
    Therein lies the crux of the debate: Does the Bill of Rights exist to limit federal authority (as it claims in the preamble to the Bill of rights and as the history books tell us it was created to do in reaction ot the federalist/anti-federalist papers) or does it exist to exert the supreme authority of the Federal Government over the states in an effort to preserve individual rights?

    History tells us it was created to be the former: a restriction on the federal government.

    Unfortunately, to get it recognized federally, they had to try a state case of firearm bans.
    Exactly. In order to reinterpret the constitution to support their position, they had to usurp state's rights.

    I'm not really into this to test laws, on a state by state or locality basis.
    I know. I'm using those examples to point out the flaw in the comparison, though.

    I'm doing this to test people, who give me excuses like, preserving life and compelling public interest.
    I know, but the test is flawed because of the reasons I point out: federal authority vs. State and local authority. People CAN live in dry counties if they despise the negative affects of alcohol. People can also choose to live in very permissive counties with regard to alcohol.

    However people cannot live in gun-free counties. They can live in somewhat less gun-friendly counties (although that really amounts to "gun-neutral" when viewed from a global perspective rather than the amero-centric perspective). My point is that localizing such isues, rather than federalizing them, allows more people to live with whatever degree of permissiveness or restrictiveness they wish to live under. It guarantees the highest degree of personal freedom by allowing the most varied number of choices. Because that's what freedom really is: the range of options one has at their disposal. The greater teh range of options, the more freedom they have

    Alcohol's societal effects can arguably be larger, than that of guns.
    Not really. If we look at things fully systemically, and include all of the effects that guns and alcohol have and have had, it's pretty much neck and neck. They both have many positives too, but people don't like to think of those. Alcohol sales helped build this country. But without guns (especially improved technology of guns as compared to the weapons others used against us), it never could have existed or survived.

    I want to know if, people will actively recognize their own contradictions.
    So do I, that's why I bring up the federal vs. state thing. But remember, it's important to make sure you are corect in noting a contradiction. This requires one to use accurate equivalencies and premises, rather than assumed ones. More on that later.

    The reasons why they believe alcohol related deaths are acceptable but firearm deaths are not.
    That's a strawman, though. Nobody is actually making the claim that alcohol related deaths are acceptable. People support restrictions on the sale of alcohol and regulation of alcohol. Few people call for an outright ban, though. Many people who support gun control would also be on board with alcohol restrictions that they believe would save lives as opposed to the one's you presented to look similar to proposed gun restrictions. For example, mandatory ignition locks for vehicles calibrated to prevent cars from starting of the driver blows above the legal limit of .08, for example. Others might wish to see the legal limit lowered further still, even to the point of a zero tolerance law for drinking and driving.

    Trying to mimic the proposed gun control laws (as you have done in this thread) is sheer folly, because alcohol's dangers are not even remotely similar to those presented by firearms. This means you aren't even testing what you wish to test: people's consistency on regulating societal dangers. Even someone who would support increased restrictions on alcohol would look at your proposals as absurd because your proposals were not designed to save lives from the dangers of alcohol, instead they were designed to look similar to the proposed restrictions on guns.

    Your proposals are irrational, not simply because they won't work to achieve the "desired goal", but because they were designed with an entirely different goal in mind.

    Basically if death from a non necessary thing is unacceptable, that should be universal for all non necessary things.
    That is not an existing premise for gun control, though. The problem here is the same as what happened in the first few quotes of this post: you aren't arguing against statements which are actually made. You are arguing against imaginary statements.

    I'm not really wanting to debate federal laws, I'm just using the further restrictions for the basis of why one should be more available, while another should not.
    If you get what I mean.
    I get it, but the problem is that you aren't really debating the issue you claim to want to debate either, by virtue of using a innacurate comparison to attack what amounts to a strawman argument.

    That being said, there is definitely some potential to your approach here, you just fell into problem of seeing equivalencies when they don't exist which caused the desired goal of testing consistency to become impossible.

    But equivalencies between proposed gun restrictions and proposed alcohol-related restrictions do exist (the key here is to use real proposals for both that have similarities). The thread can be salvaged by making accurate equivalencies. For example, if you had used the proposal to make owner-specific trigger locks mandatory and compared it to breathalyzer ignition locks, you would have been spot on. If someone supports the trigger locks in order to prevent unnecessary deaths, they would need to support the ignition locks in order to be consistent in their desire to prevent unnecessary deaths. If they support trigger locks in order to prevent crime-related deaths (stolen guns, for example), the same goal is achieved with ignition locks (DUI manslaughter). I can't really think of a premise which supports one restriction but not the other (although that does not mean that one doesn't exist).

    The point I'm making is that in order to test consistency, you have to have real equivalencies that are dependent on real premises that people employ (rather than the premises you imagine they must employ). The argument you have presented here does not do this.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #159
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,572

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorgasm View Post
    That's why this thread fails.
    He did it to be sarcastic. Try to read between the lines.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  10. #160
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,194

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    He did it to be sarcastic. Try to read between the lines.
    I didn't mean that Harry failed. I get that he was being sarcastic. I meant that people taking the analogy seriously, as some are, fails. My bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •