Why? Man's Answer...

[Que]

Alcohol causes fewer problems than it would if wasn’t regulated at all. Absolute prohibition doesn’t work and no regulation at all would allow 5 year olds to buy scotch. Everything is a balance aimed at harm reduction - the fact that harm elimination isn’t achieved doesn’t mean regulation isn’t achieving a valid objective.

If you are trying to argue regulation doesn’t work the only relevant reference point is how many alcohol related deaths there would be if it wasn’t regulated. Your ridiculous argument is like saying speed limits don’t work because more people die in traffic accidents (even though speed is regulated) than they do in badger maulings (badgers are not regulated). They have nothing to do with each other.

Whether any given rule or regulation is effective, desirable or represents an acceptable trade-off of personal freedom is always debatable. Hiding behind juvenile insults and spurious logic isn’t debate.

The point once again for the slow of learning isn’t that alcohol regulation is ideal or perfectly effective. The point is that we accept its basic premise as a means of harm reduction. The fact that uncle Billy drunk himself into an early grave is no reason to make tequila shots available in primary school. We all get that. We all know regulation isn’t perfect but it is better than nothing.

Why is it so impossible to even entertain the possibility that the same logic applies to guns?

What part of pointing out the failed logic of your analogy indicates I am "slow of learning?"

It's hardly my fault that you didn't and still have not been able to construct a logical, convincing argument.

 

[BobBalouski]

Why is it so inconceivable that society take measures to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people?

Certifiable "mentally unstable people" ALREADY aren't legally permitted to possess guns in every state I know of...

...perhaps you can offer these "measures" you insist will make that even more effective?

Why is a simple background check of an angry young man wanting to buy an assault rifle too much to even discuss?

"simple background check"s were done on this allegedly "angry young man" for each weapon he obtained for his possession...

...why do you continue to suggest "measures" that already FULLY exist, don't?

Your rank ignorance should be far more embarrassing to you than it is to me.

 

[BobBalouski]

Many gun-rights activists oppose the laws. They say they can be used to unfairly take away rights from people who have not been convicted of crimes or professionally evaluated for mental illness.

And you favor laws that unconstitutionally deny an individual their natural, inalienable right to keep and bear arms...

...who hasn't been convicted of any crimes and hasn't been legally deemed mentally ill?



You don't fool anyone, socialist slvt.

You couldn't care less about the Constitution (laws) - you simply seek the removal of arms from the American population in total, but don't have the active ovaries anymore to fight for that constitutionally.

BTW: I have never met a single Amendment II-revering America patriot who thinks/believes a mentally ill person should possess a firearm of any kind.

Quick outright lying again, progressive pig.

 

[BobBalouski]

Why is it so impossible to even entertain the possibility that the same logic applies to guns?

It's your illogic that's the problem...

I am not championing more regulation for alcohol use, since I natively discern every normal individual is ultimately responsible for their own actions.

I am simply posting FACTS:

1. Regulation of alcohol use and gun use are both heavily regulated in America.

2. Alcohol and guns are relatively just as available in America as the other is.

3. There are said to be more firearms in America than people (one estimate is 357- 317), meaning that if guns were as horrendously dangerous to the American public as deliberate falsifiers like you disingenuously position them to be, then the following wouldn't be the factual case:

4. Alcohol use causes scores and scores more abuse, injury, and death EVERY DAY in America than gun use does.



Cause/effect; which is more utterly destructive upon ALL American life: alcohol or guns?

Perfectly simple, totally logical answer...

...which is why the purposely disingenuous will never admit it's ONLY nothing but their socialist/anti-Amendment II political agendas that prevent them from reaching its truth, too.

Truth and fallacy are confirmed by the very same validator: contradiction. Anyone who claims to be only for the well being of all life who isn't EQUALLY against alcohol use as they are gun use, furnishes their own contradiction when they only politically campaign against one and not the other.

BTW: I bet you also champion the "right" of women to intentionally & tortuously kill the totally innocent & completely defenseless human life naturally maturing within them, simply for convenience...

...amirite, poser?

 

[ChinoMoreno]

lol man wtf regulation is very regulated and guns are as easy to get as alcohol haha no way.

 

[Hypoxia]

lol man wtf regulation is very regulated and guns are as easy to get as alcohol haha no way.

Of course firearms can't be banned in USA. They're everywhere! But showing up in public, armed: you should suffer torture and exile. Carry one to school: capitol offense. First public flogging, then public flaying, then the anthill...

Booze is abundant. Cars are abundant. But get caught driving drunk and see what a world of hurt you've entered. Better to die behind the wheel, alone.

 

[Hypoxia]

Nobody cares about your bullshit, traitor. Turn yourself in now.

MacGyver can build one using nothing more than a paper clip and a post-it note!

Anyone can build a simple firearm, or run a 3D printer to make the parts for a more complex gun. But if you're caught with it in public you should be tortured and exiled.

Run to your owner Kim before USA justice catches up with you.

 

[policywank]

What part of pointing out the failed logic of your analogy indicates I am "slow of learning?"

It's hardly my fault that you didn't and still have not been able to construct a logical, convincing argument.

Actually that comment was not aimed at you.

The logic of the analogy is not failed. It never was about comparing alcohol to firearms or their regulatory regimes. In fact it wasn't really an analogy. It was an example to demonstrate the simple premise that virtually all dangerous substances or products are regulated. The form of that regulation needs to fit the facts but the "any regulation infringes on my freedom" argument doesn't hold up.

 

[policywank]

And you favor laws that unconstitutionally deny an individual their natural, inalienable right to keep and bear arms...

...who hasn't been convicted of any crimes and hasn't been legally deemed mentally ill?



You don't fool anyone, socialist slvt.

You couldn't care less about the Constitution (laws) - you simply seek the removal of arms from the American population in total, but don't have the active ovaries anymore to fight for that constitutionally.

BTW: I have never met a single Amendment II-revering America patriot who thinks/believes a mentally ill person should possess a firearm of any kind.

Quick outright lying again, progressive pig.

No they just won't support efforts to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people if they find them even slightly inconvenient to themselves. Asshole.

 

[policywank]

It's your illogic that's the problem...

I am not championing more regulation for alcohol use, since I natively discern every normal individual is ultimately responsible for their own actions.

I am simply posting FACTS:

1. Regulation of alcohol use and gun use are both heavily regulated in America.

2. Alcohol and guns are relatively just as available in America as the other is.

3. There are said to be more firearms in America than people (one estimate is 357- 317), meaning that if guns were as horrendously dangerous to the American public as deliberate falsifiers like you disingenuously position them to be, then the following wouldn't be the factual case:

4. Alcohol use causes scores and scores more abuse, injury, and death EVERY DAY in America than gun use does.



Cause/effect; which is more utterly destructive upon ALL American life: alcohol or guns?

Perfectly simple, totally logical answer...

...which is why the purposely disingenuous will never admit it's ONLY nothing but their socialist/anti-Amendment II political agendas that prevent them from reaching its truth, too.

Truth and fallacy are confirmed by the very same validator: contradiction. Anyone who claims to be only for the well being of all life who isn't EQUALLY against alcohol use as they are gun use, furnishes their own contradiction when they only politically campaign against one and not the other.

BTW: I bet you also champion the "right" of women to intentionally & tortuously kill the totally innocent & completely defenseless human life naturally maturing within them, simply for convenience...

...amirite, poser?

Actually completely illogical since alcohol and guns are two separate things. Yet somehow you laughably think that the use of that simple explanatory example now somehow makes it relevant whether or not alcohol kills more people than guns. "Gee mom sorry little Johnny took a bullet to the head but you know um alcohol is worse. And me and my buddies are entitled to go skeet shooting with Ak-47s so fuck you and little Johnny and get your progressive ovaries out of my way." Asshole.

Ya, the background checks are super rigorous.....lol. That is a good one. No holes....or should I say bullet holes in that system. Bwahahaha. It is a common sense, logical system open to reasoned discussion. Ya ha ha. Oh I forgot that the best indicator of a logical regulatory regime is one governed by people who jump straight to aggressive insult fest any time anyone has any dissenting opinion. No wait that isn't right. That is just stupid. Asshole.

I love the little goading jab about abortion. That was special. So your rights as you see them ensconced in the constitution are inalienable but mine as established by the judiciary are not? A fetus is sacred but apparently a 1st grader isn't if he gets in the way of every tiny dick right wing nut job who wants to feel better about himself by owning a machine gun? Asshole.

 

[Que]

Actually completely illogical since alcohol and guns are two separate things. Yet somehow you laughably think that the use of that simple explanatory example now somehow makes it relevant whether or not alcohol kills more people than guns. "Gee mom sorry little Johnny took a bullet to the head but you know um alcohol is worse. And me and my buddies are entitled to go skeet shooting with Ak-47s so fuck you and little Johnny and get your progressive ovaries out of my way." Asshole.

Ya, the background checks are super rigorous.....lol. That is a good one. No holes....or should I say bullet holes in that system. Bwahahaha. It is a common sense, logical system open to reasoned discussion. Ya ha ha. Oh I forgot that the best indicator of a logical regulatory regime is one governed by people who jump straight to aggressive insult fest any time anyone has any dissenting opinion. No wait that isn't right. That is just stupid. Asshole.

I love the little goading jab about abortion. That was special. So your rights as you see them ensconced in the constitution are inalienable but mine as established by the judiciary are not? A fetus is sacred but apparently a 1st grader isn't if he gets in the way of every tiny dick right wing nut job who wants to feel better about himself by owning a machine gun? Asshole.

What novel, well reasoned, logical arguments.

There is really no point to having these discussions. It boils down to, "but we GOTTA do SOMETHING," vs "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." One of those arguments is formed in the prefrontal cortex the other one in the amygdala.

I first watched that debate in about 1978. Nothing has changed, or will change.

Well other than the ability to forcibly commit the insane.

"If it saves just one child" is only void when it comes to the risk of violating the rights of just one nut.

 

[BobBalouski]

Does that strain of wannabe "dominant", emotionally hyperbolic hysteria really attract even the most cuck of submissives?