• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Time for Alcohol Control?

Should we propose further alcohol control?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 12.1%

  • No

    Votes: 22 66.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 7 21.2%
  • Total voters
    33
zstep18 said:
I guess I look at guns specifically as it relates to schools. I don't want guns banned all together. Believe me. I actually want to get a gun myself one day (if the other half lets me!).

If we have people armed in schools, which is the alternative, how does that play into the psychology of the kids at school?

And I was so adamant about the drunk driving case mostly because I was in mock trial and the biggest case I dealt with was a drunk driving case.
Click to expand...

Having one or several armed designated guards at entry points will help protect schools but the answers take time and rational thinking, not a bunch of knee jerk reactions. A combination of small changes, including better screening for the mentally ill are about all we can realistically address for now. Unfortunately, freedom comes with a cost and twisting tragic events to fit a politically motivated or social agenda is a very disingenuous act towards society as a whole.
 
Surtr said:
But added a mountain of other problems, including violent crime and disease associated with poorly manufactured liquor.
Click to expand...

Crime remained even during most of prohibition.
It actually peaked before it was instituted.

A lot of the disease was related to denaturing of other alcohols, but I will admit that poor manufacturing was a contributing factor.
However cirrhosis was greatly reduced.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The point of this thread, was to question how far are people willing to go in order to preserve life, by restricting access to something that is shown to be dangerous, but that they also use more often and/or find acceptable.
Alcohol and guns are very different animals, they do share some common characteristics (use for different cultural groups, entertainment, etc.)

I'm guessing most people don't want to restrict access to alcohol, even though there are far larger, negative societal effects.
To me, it's a contradiction in beliefs.
I want to know why people will make excuses for one side, but not the other.

I'd rather people own up to, "hey I accept there will be bad things that happen, it's not right, but that's the price of living in a somewhat free society."
Click to expand...

You agree that alcohol and guns are different animals. When you talk about alcohol-related deaths compared to gun-related deaths, I think you fail to take into consideration the 'intent' of violence and the violence caused towards innocent, and just the the power and control one has when holding a gun.

In my opinion, these considerations are important.
 
zstep18 said:
You agree that alcohol and guns are different animals. When you talk about alcohol-related deaths compared to gun-related deaths, I think you fail to take into consideration the 'intent' of violence and violence caused towards innocents. And just the the power and control one has when holding a gun.

In my opinion, these considerations are important.
Click to expand...

I understand there are different levels of intent, but at the end of the day, both groups of dead people are still dead.
If our intent is to reduce overall death, from non necessary things, then we should not stop at just firearms.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I understand there are different levels of intent, but at the end of the day, both groups of dead people are still dead.
If our intent is to reduce overall death, from non necessary things, then we should not stop at just firearms.
Click to expand...

MY intent is to reduce deaths of violence and specifically violence towards children.

You see deaths across all levels as the same, at least that's what it seems to me. I see some deaths as even more horrific than others.
 
zstep18 said:
MY intent is to reduce deaths of violence and specifically violence towards children.
Click to expand...

Then you'd be more in favor of further restrictions on alcohol.
It's one of the number 1 issues involving reported child abuse.

zstep18 said:
You see deaths across all levels as the same, at least that's what it seems to me. I see some deaths as even more horrific than others.
Click to expand...

No I don't, death from natural causes is unavoidable, everyone dies.
Premature, innocent deaths are a different animal.

In any case, someone innocent dying from the effects of another is wrong.
It doesn't it make it less worse because it was an accident, by intoxication.
 
zstep18 said:
MY intent is to reduce deaths of violence and specifically violence towards children.

You see deaths across all levels as the same, at least that's what it seems to me. I see some deaths as even more horrific than others.
Click to expand...

Over 18,000 children die of starvation or hunger related issues everyday in the world. We can do something about this and starving to death hurts a lot longer than a gunshot wound.
 
I think comparing gun-rights to other issues is getting a bit old.

"Alcohol" control and gun control really are very different questions and the analogy is too distant.

Alcohol control seems to be going too far. I do think if someone gets drunk and kills people as a result of being drunk, it's murder and should be treated as such.

BUT as acceptable blood alcohol levels falls and fines/jail/punishment goes up, I think it's gone TOO far. On New Year's Eve, we opted to NOT go out, because of all the police out and we wouldn't dare have a drink. If you say "yes, but I only had one" they will have you blow a breathe test, do a field sobriety test etc - and if they decide you failed it's going to cost you $10,000 in fines, costs, increased insurance and a massive stigma.

One reason it does NOT work as an analogy, is no one claims that getting drunk of beer is safer than drunk on whiskey. Alcohol is alcohol is alcohol. The stuff that gets you drunk is 100% the same in all liquors. There are different firearms and ammo and they are not all the same.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Then you'd be more in favor of further restrictions on alcohol.
It's one of the number 1 issues involving reported child abuse.



No I don't, death from natural causes is unavoidable, everyone dies.
Premature, innocent deaths are a different animal.

In any case, someone innocent dying from the effects of another is wrong.
It doesn't it make it less worse because it was an accident, by intoxication.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes it does. Intent and accident are completely different. It's not my fault if you can't understand the difference between a murderer who intentionally kills someone and someone who doesn't intentionally kill someone.
 
zstep18 said:
Yes, yes it does. Intent and accident are completely different. It's not my fault if you can't understand the difference between a murderer who intentionally kills someone and someone who doesn't intentionally kill someone.
Click to expand...

I know they are different, but the end result is the same, dead.
More often then not, dead people probably didn't want to die.

If we are intent on reducing unnecessary deaths, then we should attack all things, which cause/contribute to unnecessary deaths.
 
grip said:
Over 18,000 children die of starvation or hunger related issues everyday in the world. We can do something about this and starving to death hurts a lot longer than a gunshot wound.
Click to expand...

I fully support reducing starvation and hunger throughout the world.

What is your point?
 
zstep18 said:
I fully support reducing starvation and hunger throughout the world.

What is your point?
Click to expand...


Don't you think we should address them in priority then? I mean if you're sincere isn't 18K deaths a day far worse than the gun incidents?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I know they are different, but the end result is the same, dead.
More often then not, dead people probably didn't want to die.

If we are intent on reducing unnecessary deaths, then we should attack all things, which cause/contribute to unnecessary deaths.
Click to expand...

You keep saying the end result is the same. To me, the death of a child is worse than the death of an adult, in almost all cases.
 
grip said:
Don't you think we should address them in priority then? I mean if you're sincere isn't 18K deaths a day far worse than the gun incidents?
Click to expand...

I didn't realize I was giving one (starvation and hunger) priority over the other (gun violence).
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Explain?
I guess were just going to have different opinions on this matter.
Click to expand...

Popularly used reasons for more gun control are generally, reducing violence and death associated with such.
The same reasons could be used to advocate for more control of alcohol.

The WHO recognizes that alcohol is directly related to violence and death.
Depending on what you consider valid, there is more of both with alcohol.
 
grip said:
You should of.
Click to expand...

Well, considering this thread specifically relates to gun control and alcohol one could see where I would spend most of my comment on gun violence..
 
zstep18 said:
Well, considering this thread specifically relates to gun control and alcohol one could see where I would spend most of my comment on gun violence..
Click to expand...

So what's your answer to gun violence?
 
grip said:
So what's your answer to gun violence?
Click to expand...

Harsher punishments, stricter measures, stricter adherence to the laws in place, stricter background checks, etc.
 
zstep18 said:
Harsher punishments, stricter measures, stricter adherence to the laws in place, stricter background checks, etc.
Click to expand...


Why not just make handguns illegal and confiscate them all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom