Shouldn't there be a movement to abolish alcohol and tobacco?

[Tim01]

I know alcohol kills between 2 and 10 times as many people as guns. And alcohol is just a recreational drug, nothing more. And tobacco speaks for itself.A highly addictive cancer causing poison marketed toward teenagers. 2 useless dangerous recreational poisons available in our society.
Anybody who wants to ban guns should be at least 10 times as upset about our available drugs.

Of course, people like these poisons, and these poisons aren't seen as mean or aggressive.

[Deep13]

1. The abolition of alcohol didn't take.

Too many drunks in this country who will do anything for a drink.

[sui generis]

2. and let's have a movement abolishing masturbation while you're at it.

At least make it illegal to use your left hand for a wank in the gungeon - because that's RECREATIONAL. :eyes:

Jesus - just when I thought there was a little bit of common sense taking root here . . .

Do people come in here thinking they're in the gun underground at the democratic underground surrounded by gun grabbers trying to gangbang 'em in the ass? You really are on foreign turf if that's where you think you are.

[Tim01]

5. Anti-gunners are irrational self righteous hypocrites.

Exactly like religious fanatics. They are only interested in saving the children as long as it doesn't interfere with their own agenda. It's pretty nervy to post about children killed by bullets, and ignore the many more children killed by recreational drugs.

Does anybody want to get rid of their recreational drug to save children? No.

[sui generis]

6. you've got to be kidding me

I'll bite - :evilgrin:

I can raise my kids to not use drugs, and to drink alcohol responsibly. If your kid uses drugs it won't kill mine. If your kid pulls the trigger on a gun you left laying around while you had to take an emergency crap he can still kill MY kid.

You bet your big wide ass I'm self-righteous, but you can take that latest hypocrite meme you got in your daily email from the NRA and stuff it where the sun ain't big enough to shine.

There is no comparison between illegal drug use and ignorant gun use - to attempt to make one is irrational.

[eqfan592]

7. How about a teen that drinks and drives...

...after digging into their parents liqueur cabinet? That does happen. You know how I know? Because 4 people I went to school with were killed in just such a way.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, three teens are killed each day when they drink alcohol and drive. At least six more die every day from other alcohol-related causes according to the CDC (http://www.camy.org/factsheets/index.php?FactsheetID=7).

Sorry, but it is a perfectly reasonable and rational comparison to make.

[sui generis]

12. yes but how many of those teens are gangbangers!

that statistic is flawed. You don't know how many of those kids were drinking themselves.

like that argument? So ONLY 11 - 13 children under the age of 18 are killed every day by guns. And some turdbrain here actually gave me a return salvo that said the statistic was flawed because . . .

No it's not "perfectly reasonable" at all. Guns kill more kids.

Anyway, this whole argument is a straw man designed to provoke. I'm not an "anti-gunner". And what a stupid phrase. You can can always tell when it's time to pa-troll the gungeon.

[eqfan592]

20. And how many of those kids killed with guns under the age of 18...

...were gangbangers? Are you honestly trying to say that the "gangbanger" argument doesn't work both ways?

As for your gun statistic, you are not changing the parameters from children killed by guns shot by other children to just children killed in general. Given that I placed similar restrictions on my statistics as you did in your first scenario, your new stat can not be directly compared to the one I posted. And given that your stat does not show a significantly higher number than what I posted (from 9 per day for my stat to 11-13 per day for your stat), adding in the additional numbers of children killed through alcohol related incidents in general will obviously increase the per day average.

But even if it did not, the two numbers are still close enough to say that a reasonable comparison can still be made, in spite of your assertion to the contrary.

Also, I'm no really sure if you misused cut and paste while putting your post together, but it seems rather disjointed and is difficult to read.

[sui generis]

22. no, but it did clear your head by several feet

I was being extremely sarcastic.

Sonny, don't quote statistics to me - it's what I do for a living, in the real world. The difference is I use more than the NRA and the gun-grabber sites as my sources.

Okay, let's just take this to the bloody end: fine. I'll give up drugs and alcohol (collectively) if you give up your guns.

That's what you are proposing, so I accept.

[eqfan592]

24. You make far too many assumptions.

You assume I use statistics provided by the NRA, yet I never once cited a single statistic from them in our entire discussion. This assumption on your part is implied by your stating that the difference between you and I is that you use more than "the NRA and the gun-grabber sites" as your sources. Given that I do as well, as evidenced by our discussion here, I would say that this was a poor attempt at establishing a distinction between our methods.

And I'm not proposing any such thing. I believe the point of the OP was to point out the general hypocrisy of anti-gun rights advocates when it comes to these issues, not to seriously suggest such a policy.

[sui generis]

27. no, his point was to inflame.

And about that grammar, dear schoolmarm: man up dude. You're sounding a bit prissy. This is a forum, not an English essay competition.

I readily employ the use of color in language, just as you enjoy a goold old fashioned run-on sentence.

"And I'm not proposing any such thing."

[eqfan592]

30. I fully understand that this is not an "english essay competition."

And I almost never even make mention of a posters grammatical skills when speaking in a forum such as this, as I myself fully understand that I'm far from perfect when it comes to grammar.

But in this case, you attempted to make a sarcastic remark as to my missing your sarcasm in a previous post, and I was pointing out that the sarcasm was difficult to detect due to the poor grammar involved.

I did, however, remove the reference to your grammar in my previous post, as I have no wish to be that directly antagonistic towards you on that particular issue.

[sui generis]

31. Oy.

okay.

[Tim01]

8. "If your kid uses drugs it won't kill mine." Do you think about what you say?

Drunks kill people all the time. High people kill people all the time. There is a very very long list of families who had to bury their kids because they were killed by drunks. A LONGER list than kids killed by bullets.

Just admit that innocents killed by alcohol don't matter to you as much as innocents killed by bullets. Even though alcohol actually kills a lot more.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tim01]

16. "STFU" Now I"m laughing AT you.

Just say it. You think people killed by drunks isn't as bad as people killed by guns. Even if drunks kill MORE people.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eqfan592]

21. Given the consistancy of your last 3 posts....

...it would be hesitant, if I were you, to call into question the reasoning capabilities of other posters.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eqfan592]

26. I do, in fact, read a great deal.

And I have yet to have any issues with any specific words you have used. I appreciate your concern, however.

[sui generis]

29. So am I a hypocrite or not?

I'm a little fuzzy after your dissembling, and entirely unable to think for myself.

:eyes:

This whole thread was flamebait, assuming that anyone who disagreed was a gun-grabber, or as the OP put it, an "anti-gunner".

I know there are several poster types present, (we're missing Google Ninja (tm), but we do have Expert Logician (tm), Hyuk Hyuk Genius (tm) and Great and Wise Grammatician (tm) who is unable to follow sarcasm. Of course I am here too starring in the role Professional Cynic (tm).

It's a party, dude.

[eqfan592]

32. You have yet to clearly state your possition on any of the issues.

At least not in this thread. You've attacked the OP, and you've attempted to show that no no comparison can be made between the various subjects mentioned. When shown how such a comparison can be made, you dismissed it with little to no logical reasoning involved. Honestly, you sound less like a "Professional Cynic" and more like a "Professional Bull-Shit artist." ;)

Oh, and I'm not a "Wise Grammatician," and I'm more than capable of following sarcasm, when it's being employed by somebody who knows how to do it properly. ;)

[sui generis]

33. My position? How often do I beat my wife?

My position is that the entire responsible gun ownership dialogue is better off without ridiculous assertions and irrelevant comparisons.

This topic is a playbook topic designed to provoke and annoy - not even remotely original. For the record, I am not "anti-gun", whatever that is, nor anti-alcohol, drug, nor anti- any other form of "recreational" anything.

I just think it's disingenuous to pretend this threadbare logic means anything at all, so it's there for me to toy with. I do understand the logical trap completely, but in this case I don't need to fight bottle caps with fire - when a hammer will do.

[eqfan592]

35. While I don't agree that the comparisions made here are irrelevant.

I do appreciate you laying out your argument clearly, and I think you may even have a valid point to a degree, in spite of my disagreement on the relevance of certain comparisons.



:toast:

[Katya Mullethov]

13. You can teach them how to swim and the pitfalls of drink and drug

But you cant teach them how to avoid shooting each other . Perhaps you were thinking of someone else's helpless , hapless , spawn .

http://www.democratunderground.net/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=271698&mesg_id=271698

[sui generis]

15. are you from barcelona?

sounds kind of like it. That or Shootyville.

Here's your scalp, don't wear it all at one time.

[Katya Mullethov]

57. Si si senor Fawltypants

I'll be prostrate beneath the Leyland if you need me dear .

[sui generis]

60. you're funny

:P

[Tim01]

36. Just admit you are wrong.

Drunk kids do kill other kids. It happens all the time. Just admit it.

Please feel free to use insults to try to change the subject.

"If your kid uses drugs it won't kill mine."

Just admit you are wrong.

[sui generis]

39. Hyuk Hyuk Genius (tm) alert.

Dude.

[Tim01]

41. "If your kid uses drugs it won't kill mine." Admit you are wrong. Don't change the subject. nt

[sui generis]

46. I have fallen on my knees WEEPING begging forgiveness for

Nope.

Not changing the subject: I'm not wrong. So I repeat: Nope. Are you brain-damaged? Does this technique work for you in the real world? It wouldn't even work for you if you had a gun pointed at me, a straw in your nose, a needle in your arm and an empty fifth of scotch in front of your lobotome, that's how much I disagree with you. Ironically.

[Tim01]

54. " If your kid uses drugs it won't kill mine." "I'm not wrong."

Drunk people don't kill other people?

[rd_kent]

42. "If your kid uses drugs it won't kill mine." Actually, that is completly false.

Kids that get drunk or high on drugs kill far more other kids than kids that kill other kids with their parents guns.

As a matter of fact, kids talking and texting on cell phones GIVEN to them by their parents are FAR MORE DANGEROUS than a gun ever will be.

[sui generis]

44. and you'll give up guns if I give up drugs and alcohol is also completely false

By the way, "completely false" is completely false. "It is not always the case" is a more factual statement.

Jeepers. I have not been schooled here.

[rd_kent]

58. Uhm YOU are the only one that has said that.

[Tejas]

56. You haven't lurked long enough.

Welcome to the Gungeon, but beware...some of the fantasies/projection put forth by grabbers would make Daumer blush.

That said, abolition of public masturbation is a fine idea. I think Dave Chapell would gladly back you up on that too.



*yes, only Dave Chapell fans will know.

[Euromutt]

59. There was one. Its lasting legacy is Kellogg's corn flakes.

Seriously. William Kellogg was your archetypal uptight Victorian, and thought--for no readily explicable reason (but then again, he was a Seventh-Day Adventist, so he believed quite a few things for no readily explicable reason)--that corn flakes would suppress the urge to masturbate. He advocated circumcision for the same reason, too.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Sell them in state stores. You can't trust the private sector. What a great idea for firearm sales!

[eqfan592]

10. No, not really a great idea at all.

Nice try, though. ;)

[Captain Hilts]

11. Hey, you threw it right over the plate....I had to. nt

[liberal N proud]

4. Beer is the only pleasure I have left

And I am sure the doctors will take that away eventually too.

So don't be spoiling my fun.

Besides, Probation didn't do much to stop alcohol consumption. It just created NASCAR drivers.

[pocoloco]

9. LOL

Thunder Road

[armueller2001]

18. You mean prohibition, not probation.

Kind of like banning guns in certain cities or banning the carry of guns in particular states doesn't do much to stop criminals from doing it. They just do it anyway!

[Remmah2]

19. Distracted driving kills people too.

Should cell phones be banned?

[sui generis]

25. ban cars! they OP is clearly offering to give up guns if everyone else

gives up drugs and alcohol, so I say we take him up on his offer. Unless of course he was full of shit when he started this inflammatory thread.

[X_Digger]

28. Exposing hypocrisy via sarcasm and hyperbole..

.. did that one go 'over your head'?

Pull up a chair and discuss, rather than flailing around.

[sui generis]

34. that one got under your skin.

Not flailing at all, but if you see it that way you really don't have anything to say that I care to hear.

I love this forum. It's a bit like a visit with a mildly brain-damaged child - you never know what gems or turds will fall out.

[X_Digger]

37. Did you fail to notice that I'm not the OP?

I'd rather have a discussion than see you puff up and flail. It tickles me, sure, but I have a dilbert calendar on my desk for my daily snort.

[sui generis]

38. nope - I was addressing you

Thus you have now just left me in the dust in the non-sequitor rankings.

[X_Digger]

40. Then carry on..

I have a cup of coffee at hand to sip while I watch.

[proteus_lives]

43. I'll say this. Any DUer who wants the legalization of drugs and the banning of firearms....

Is a hypocrite.

[sui generis]

45. yep . . . any huffington poster, any ______ poster,

blah blah blah. This is a moronic meme and DU isn't the first site it's been floated on. Agenda much?

Any DUer who comes poking up straw men for the sake of a one sided discussion is a hypocrite. The world is full of absolutes with you people, and not much else.

[eqfan592]

47. What do you mean by "you people?" :P (nt)

[sui generis]

49. intential jibe

But seriously, I meant the crazy gungeoneers. There are perfectly sane reasonable rational responsible gun owners here, and then there are the ones everyone just puts up with.

Why.

[proteus_lives]

50. So I'm crazy?

Why, because grabbers are often hypocrites?

[sui generis]

51. because you think you know what a grabber is

ooooh boogeyman. the world is not black and white. Pluralism means that an absolutist is GOING to be able to characterize "hypocrisy" in anyone no matter what. I'm not afraid of dying, yet I put on my seatbelt. I'm a hypocrite.

It's funny - the only other time I hear accusations of hypocrisy regularly is from the mouths of teenagers complaining how complicated and unfair the world is. It is what it is.

Observing hypocrisy is a bit adolescent.

[proteus_lives]

53. Oh, I know what a grabber is.

Encountered them in real life and here on DU many times. You shouldn't mock the threat, they're the same same as fundie pro-lifers or anti-marriage activists. Dangerous to people's rights.

You make a fair point on pluralism. But I disagree on observing hypocrisy. I don't think it's unfair to call DUers on or just observe how ridiculous it is to be for a certain thing and against another certain thing.

[proteus_lives]

48. The poster below asks a valid question.

"You people"?

[sui generis]

52. the current poster answered it.

:P

[taurus145]

55. Forget the OP

I have a headache from all the sesquipedalian and grammatical puffery in this thread.

[sui generis]

61. he said sesquipedalian!

I admit a fondness for froondwappery myself. :P

[taurus145]

62. Be warned!

I have an OED and I'm not afraid to use it.

[SteveM]

63. Be advised, some gun-banners want to ban other stuff, too. nt

[Tim01]

64. People in favor of big brother. I shouldn't be surprised. nt