Time for Alcohol Control?

We already have alcohol control..... Just sayin...

Vapor said:

Would you like to borrow my spare tin foil hat?

Click to expand...

Interesting...so far progressives have conceded that every single proposal made regarding gun control would not prevent another Newtown or Aurora but somehow or other I'm the one that's paranoid about having MY rights restricted for no good purpose?

Harry Guerrilla said:

Considering all the talk of gun control lately, let's review the facts around alcohol and consider some further restrictions around another "death causer."

Click to expand...

There are already restrictions of alcohol.

Other than that, there is not much of a comparison between alcohol and guns. I can purposefully kill a lot of innocent people with a gun. I can't really do that with alcohol.

It's mostly destructive on the individual.

Tucker Case said:

Yes. For example, you would be allowed to possess a loaded firearm in a car which I am driving in many more states than you could legally possess an open alcoholic beverage in a car which I am driving.

Click to expand...

I actually varies from state to state, even with a CC permit, some states do not allow it.
Even with the weapon unloaded.
In most states you can carry a non concealed weapon from place to place provided it isn't a banned firearm (in that state).

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But it really doesn't stop there.
There are federal laws that govern how many parts of a firearm are allowed to not be made in America.
Which to the unknowledgable person, could have them committing a felony and not know it.

Tucker Case said:

Going further, there are more places where you would be allowed to carry a loaded firearm in public (both openly and concealed) than there are places where you are allowed to openly carry alcoholic beverages in public.

Click to expand...

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

Tucker Case said:

If I have a large personal collection of firearms, I can sell those firearms legally without facing , even here in Illinois. I cannot, however, legally sell a large personal collection of alcohol without facing some severe consequences and punishment for selling alcohol without a license.

Click to expand...

Not entirely true either.
Depends on how one sells the collection.
Depending on how it's done, it could be considered "doing business" in firearms and that requires a FF license.
If not, that's a felony, whether or not your intentions were good or bad.

Tucker Case said:

Alcohol is more regulated than guns. Just because there is no background check to purchase alcohol (although there is an identity check, and purveyors of alcohol can face severe penalties if they fail to perform these identity checks or if they perform them incompetently) doesn't mean that it is less regulated.

Click to expand...

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?
If an FFL does not perform the legally mandated checks and keep a bound book of all sales, that's a felony/multiple felonies.

Tucker Case said:

Each local municipality has the right to enact such control if they so choose, and many do. There are quite a few "dry" counties and towns in the country (many of which even ban the possession of alcohol in one's own home). Whereas McDonald v. Chicago now prevents such local ordinances from existing for guns. That's why the comparison here is deeply flawed (your goal of comparison does not compute with the realities of the way the two are currently regulated, and where the primary power to regulate locally lies).

While I was personally happy about the McDonald v. Chicago ruling for personal reasons (I was directly affected by the ruling in a positive way as a resident of Chicago, and I admitted to my hypocrisy on this when the ruling was made), politically I consider it to be a hypocritical degradation of state and local rights in favor of a big government nanny state by many of the same people who oppose the reverse occurring when it comes down to other issues that they do not support personally (such as gay marriage, many libertarians excluded from that example).

Click to expand...

Yes but there are laws in effect that ban the type of firearm one can own, in many jurisdictions.
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.

Tucker Case said:

I personally oppose the vast majority of federal laws in both directions: both from the permissive and restrictive perspective, for guns AND alcohol. I believe that gun control is also a state and local issue, not a federal one (the state militias should be regulated BY the states). Unfortunately for gun proponents (the majority of which were not even from Chicago and D.C.), they supported (and in fact guaranteed) federalizing such gun regulations in the future by virtue of supporting the McDonald and Heller decisions. By castrating state and local governments on this issue, they made it certain that the increasing demand for gun control (as misguided as it may be) will be carried out at the federal level rather than the local level. Their hypocrisy on this issue is what will lead to their own defeat in this regard.

Click to expand...

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.

Firearm laws are not universal for every state.
Federally is has to be dealth with, because it is supposed to be a right, which constantly get altered.

Unfortunately, to get it recognized federally, they had to try a state case of firearm bans.

Tucker Case said:

I am absolutely willing to admit my hypocrisy on this issue because I was directly affected by the federal intervention in McDonald v. Chicago, which is why I was pleased by the decision on one level. However, I was also dismayed by the decision, and stated so immediately after the ruling occurred, because of it's effects. Sadly, we do not live in a world where people are content to allow others to decide for themselves, no matter how little they are affected by the decisions of others. If constituents in a particular locality wants to ban guns or alcohol outright, that should be their right. They should not be subjected to nanny-state, big government interference on these matters because the money driving such interference is not local money, but instead it is national money procured by some busybody assholes who are not content to allow others to have freedom.

Click to expand...

I'm not really into this to test laws, on a state by state or locality basis.
I'm doing this to test people, who give me excuses like, preserving life and compelling public interest.
Alcohol's societal effects can arguably be larger, than that of guns.

I want to know if, people will actively recognize their own contradictions.
The reasons why they believe alcohol related deaths are acceptable but firearm deaths are not.
Basically if death from a non necessary thing is unacceptable, that should be universal for all non necessary things.

Tucker Case said:

So while I think alcohol is a good basis for a comparison if one wishes to oppose rulings such as Heller and McDonald based on the way they undermine state and local governance rights (rather than based on opposition to guns), I think it is a terrible comparison when one is speaking from a federal perspective. Not only are there more current regulations on alcohol when viewed completely (at every level of government), there is far more freedom to regulate alcohol than there is freedom to regulate firearms at the local level as a result of those rulings.

Click to expand...

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.

zstep18 said:

There are already restrictions of alcohol.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be more.

zstep18 said:

Other than that, there is not much of a comparison between alcohol and guns. I can purposefully kill a lot of innocent people with a gun. I can't really do that with alcohol.

It's mostly destructive on the individual.

Click to expand...

It's not a item for item comparison.
It's a comparison of compelling public interest.

If alcohol causes negative societal externalities, arguably, worse than firearms.
Does it not make sense to regulate it more, to reduce such externalities?

TheDemSocialist said:

We already have alcohol control..... Just sayin...

Click to expand...

We already have gun control too.
That doesn't mean there shouldn't be more control.

0bserver92 said:

Well mainly because it's fun, alcohol especially wine has a taste people want and a will to get. Even if you made it illegal it's easy to make your own, you can't make your own guns.

Click to expand...

Taste is not a good enough excuse, when there is compelling public interest at hand.
Yes, you can make your own guns.

0bserver92 said:

There is no way to control alcohol really if someone wants it they can get and probably very easy to. It's also good for the economy and tax revenue.

Click to expand...

Yes there is.
Legal controls, will reduce consumption among those who follow the law.
Prohibition shows this.

So having alcohol taxes is preferable to the negative externalities associated with alcohol?
Do you realize that alcoholism goes farther than DUI's and death, that it effects society in many levels, including child rearing and medical costs.

Harry Guerrilla said:

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be more.



It's not a item for item comparison.
It's a comparison of compelling public interest.

If alcohol causes negative societal externalities, arguably, worse than firearms.
Does it not make sense to regulate it more, to reduce such externalities?

Click to expand...

The very nature of alcohol and firearms are different. Unless your a gun collector or a hunter, firearms equate to violence in some way or another.

zstep18 said:

The very nature of alcohol and firearms are different. Unless your a gun collector or a hunter, firearms equate to violence in some way or another.

Click to expand...

You're dodging the question.
It doesn't matter the "nature" of an item.

What matters is the effects of the item, being in circulation.
Both items in circulation, supposedly have negative societal externalities.
Consumptive alcohol is a contributor in violence, disease and death.

It only makes sense to lessen it's presence, unless you're willing to accept that we should have the freedom to possess things, regardless of their effects on society at large.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Taste is not a good enough excuse, when there is compelling public interest at hand.
Yes, you can make your own guns.



Yes there is.
Legal controls, will reduce consumption among those who follow the law.
Prohibition shows this.

So having alcohol taxes is preferable to the negative externalities associated with alcohol?
Do you realize that alcoholism goes farther than DUI's and death, that it effects society in many levels, including child rearing and medical costs.

Click to expand...

I would say that alcohol is far safer than open access to guns I don't remember anyone going and shooting up a school because they had ready access to alcohol, alcohol is also not meant to kill people and for the majority of most people it presents no issue, and there are reasons want alcohol, legitimate social reasons. Problems with alcohol can be solved by raising awareness about drinking responsibly whereas firearms are a major concern and the only way to prevent is to limit access to them without a major hassle to any sane person.

Harry Guerrilla said:

You're dodging the question.
It doesn't matter the "nature" of an item.

What matters is the effects of the item, being in circulation.
Both items in circulation, supposedly have negative societal externalities.
Consumptive alcohol is a contributor in violence, disease and death.

It only makes sense to lessen it's presence, unless you're willing to accept that we should have the freedom to possess things, regardless of their effects on society at large.

Click to expand...

I am not dodging the question. I cannot go into a school or building and kill 20 innocent people with alcohol.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Considering all the talk of gun control lately, let's review the facts around alcohol and consider some further restrictions around another "death causer."
That is alcohol.

CDC figures on alcohol related deaths.



FASTSTATS - Alcohol Use



CDC - Impaired Driving Facts - Motor Vehicle Safety - Injury Center



WHO | Alcohol

I propose,

A background check system, for all alcohol purchases, supported by a fee, probably $25 per purchase.

A limit to the amount of alcohol containers, that can be purchased per day.

The limiting of alcohol percentages per volume, probably 5% or less.

What say you?

Click to expand...

That's some mighty tasty irony you're serving up there... I need to get your recipe. :mrgreen:

zstep18 said:

I am not dodging the question. I cannot go into a school or building and kill 20 innocent people with alcohol.

Click to expand...

If you drink and drive and hit a schoolbus you could kill 20 children.


And I'm fairly sure something like that has happened, probably more than once....

zstep18 said:

I am not dodging the question. I cannot go into a school or building and kill 20 innocent people with alcohol.

Click to expand...

Google "DUI driver kills."
The fact of the matter is, that nearly the same amount of people (arguably more) die from alcohol related causes.

You are dodging it.
Should we not further regulate alcohol to limit the amount of societal problems it causes?

Goshin said:

If you drink and drive and hit a schoolbus you could kill 20 children.


And I'm fairly sure something like that has happened, probably more than once....

Click to expand...

Was it an accident or on purpose?

Do people who shoot up schools do it on accident or on purpose?

Harry Guerrilla said:

Google "DUI driver kills."
The fact of the matter is, that nearly the same amount of people (arguably more) die from alcohol related causes.

You are dodging it.
Should we not further regulate alcohol to limit the amount of societal problems it causes?

Click to expand...

How many of these alcohol-related deaths were intent to kill?

My guess is most of these "alcohol-related" deaths are by accident.

0bserver92 said:

I would say that alcohol is far safer than open access to guns I don't remember anyone going and shooting up a school because they had ready access to alcohol, alcohol is also not meant to kill people and for the majority of most people it presents no issue, and there are reasons want alcohol, legitimate social reasons. Problems with alcohol can be solved by raising awareness about drinking responsibly whereas firearms are a major concern and the only way to prevent is to limit access to them without a major hassle to any sane person.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, if it is meant to do this or that.
The vast majority of firearms, don't kill anyone.

Your "legitimate social reasons" are no more valid than, the "legitimate social reasons" for firearm owners.

CDC said:

In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.

Click to expand...

CDC - Impaired Driving Facts - Motor Vehicle Safety - Injury Center

That's a whole lot of people, not being socially responsible with alcohol.

zstep18 said:

How many of these alcohol-related deaths were intent to kill?

My guess is most of these "alcohol-related" deaths are by accident.

Click to expand...

Is a death more acceptable because it was an accident?

Harry Guerrilla said:

Is a death more acceptable because it was an accident?

Click to expand...

I don't know if "acceptable" is the right word. But, there is surely a difference.

Killing someone by accident and killing someone in cold blood are miles apart.

Harry Guerrilla said:

You're dodging the question.
It doesn't matter the "nature" of an item.

What matters is the effects of the item, being in circulation.
Both items in circulation, supposedly have negative societal externalities.
Consumptive alcohol is a contributor in violence, disease and death.

It only makes sense to lessen it's presence, unless you're willing to accept that we should have the freedom to possess things, regardless of their effects on society at large.

Click to expand...

Just want to preface this by saying I'm pro-second amendment! I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing.

You can't keep narrowing the criteria by which this debate can take place. Alcohol and guns are comparable in certain ways but not in others. Moderate drinkers as a group are shown to be healthier than non-drinkers. The debate would be more relevant if you were comparing alcohol as a legal substance with other substances that are illegal.

They tried criminalizing alcohol and it didn't work because anyone can produce it in their home using bread scraps and a simple setup. Also, the government wanted the revenue. If alcohol could be criminalized it probably would be, but the prohibition era didn't pan out. I think it had something to do with the maffia taking over Chicago with their illegal alcohol revenues, and building tunnels into Canada.

You can't make guns in your home. Guns are used for targetted violence whereas alcohol related deaths tend to be accidental. Weeding out psychopaths and convicts from gun ownership could reduce the gun violence rate, but such controls would not work for alcohol because every day people become intoxicated.

Most deaths in the U.S. annually are obesity related, like heart disease, stroke, etc. Why aren't we outlawing unhealthy food? There are over 100,000 deaths per year due to accidents, most of them automobile - why aren't we banning cars? Maybe it's because driving is a privilege that can be revoked, just like gun ownership should be?

Plenty of drunk drivers don't kill anyone, but they are a risk. Most fatalities involving alcohol are accidental, even if there could have been some prevention. There is nothing accidental about a psycho shooting up a school full of children.

Your argument is flawed at its core because you are comparing accidental death to pre-meditated murder - statistically speaking.

zstep18 said:

I don't know if "acceptable" is the right word. But, there is surely a difference.

Killing someone by accident and killing someone in cold blood are miles apart.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that regardless of the accident or intention, the person who died, would rather not be dead.
That doesn't even begin to deal with the other social effects of alcohol like, child abuse and domestic violence.

zstep18 said:

I don't know if "acceptable" is the right word. But, there is surely a difference.

Killing someone by accident and killing someone in cold blood are miles apart.

Click to expand...

That kind of careless disregard for others safety is a close second to deadly intent.

News flash....for some.
Guns, and the lack of their control killed those children, NOT knives, not drugs, not alcohol.
GUNS.
Alcohol is under plenty of control......what more do you want ?
prohibition ?
Read your American history.
We have far too many in a permanent state of denial....To change, to improve.....all but impossible.

zstep18 said:

I don't know if "acceptable" is the right word. But, there is surely a difference.

Killing someone by accident and killing someone in cold blood are miles apart.

Click to expand...

Miles apart to you maybe. Not to those who've lost family members because of the actions of an irresponsible drunk driver. The end result is exactly the same. Dead.

Northern Light said:

Just want to preface this by saying I'm pro-second amendment! I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing.

You can't keep narrowing the criteria by which this debate can take place. Alcohol and guns are comparable in certain ways but not in others. Moderate drinkers as a group are shown to be healthier than non-drinkers. The debate would be more relevant if you were comparing alcohol as a legal substance with other substances that are illegal.

They tried criminalizing alcohol and it didn't work because anyone can produce it in their home using bread scraps and a simple setup. Also, the government wanted the revenue. If alcohol could be criminalized it probably would be, but the prohibition era didn't pan out. I think it had something to do with the maffia taking over Chicago with their illegal alcohol revenues, and building tunnels into Canada.

You can't make guns in your home. Guns are used for targetted violence whereas alcohol related deaths tend to be accidental. Weeding out psychopaths and convicts from gun ownership could reduce the gun violence rate, but such controls would not work for alcohol because every day people become intoxicated.

Most deaths in the U.S. annually are obesity related, like heart disease, stroke, etc. Why aren't we outlawing unhealthy food? There are over 100,000 deaths per year due to accidents, most of them automobile - why aren't we banning cars? Maybe it's because driving is a privilege that can be revoked, just like gun ownership should be?

Plenty of drunk drivers don't kill anyone, but they are a risk. Most fatalities involving alcohol are accidental, even if there could have been some prevention. There is nothing accidental about a psycho shooting up a school full of children.

Your argument is flawed at its core because you are comparing accidental death to pre-meditated murder - statistically speaking.

Click to expand...

First off, prohibition did work.
It reduced over all consumption and reduce causes of cirrhosis.
I'm not arguing for prohibition though.

We don't outlaw automobiles because it's arguable that more people would die/be negatively socially effected, than if they weren't banned.
Light alcohol consumption is heart healthy and can reduce cancer rates, but that's fine.
We can allow light purchases of alcohol, while prohibiting moderate and heavy purchases.

Heavy users increase their risk of cancer and have negative social effects like domestic violence and child abuse.