- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 28,134
- Reaction score
- 15,019
- Location
- Canada's Capital
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
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?
It reduced consumption and potentially alcohol disease related deaths.
Also, back in prohibition we didn't have Mandatory Minimums so in a few years they were out and committing crimes again. Nowadays, you could probably put a 25 year minimum and nobody will blink.
Alcohol serves far more of a purpose in society than guns will at least here. If a mentally ill person drinks a lot of alcohol they were probably become incapacitated, not go shoot up a school let alone hold a gun. Alcohol can be controlled by public awareness and not placing restrictions on alcohol though like I said things like drunk driving should be heavily punished.
Ever since the advent of drinking and driving laws, accidents and fatalities have steadily decreased. Image the lives saved if ya'll had stricter gun laws.
And if you killed yourself with a gun, that would be your prerogative. As long as it's only you.
Why do you need to be able to buy large amounts of beer, wine and spirits?
It'd be awesome if they would develop an alcohol sensor on cars that would detect alcohol in your breath when you put they key in the ignition and then lock up the car, but I'm not sure that's possible
Ever since the advent of drinking and driving laws, accidents and fatalities have steadily decreased. Image the lives saved if ya'll had stricter gun laws.
Not to mention the government regulation of alcohol, increased taxation of alcohol, regulations limiting who may sell alcohol as well as who may purchase alcohol, the ability of local and state governments to completely ban alcohol sale and purchase if they so choose, laws which prevent people from using alcohol in public, Bans on the sale of certain types of alcoholic beverages (specifically there is a ban on alcoholic beverages which contain caffeine) etc etc etc.
Trying to use alcohol as the basis for a satirical point about gun control is a horrible idea because alcohol is regulated far more than guns are, and there have been clear benefits from these regulations. Not to mention, most people do not find the existing regulations of alcohol absurd (they meet with little to no real resistance, at least), whereas proposed regulations of firearms that are practically identical (increased regulations with regard to the sale of firearms at gun shows, for example, bans on the sale certain types of firearms, local bans on firearms) are viewed as absurd (any proposed regulation meets with incredible resistance).
To Harry: Terrible choice of topic to make your point. Most people are not calling for a full on prohibition of guns. And those that are seeking such have no chance of success in this country. The real threat to guns would be the people who are seeking something akin to what already exists for alcohol (regulations which have been relatively successful in producing measurable benefits, too) but not for guns.
It already is controlled. But this is actually about guns.
Alcohol, used as intended, is a lot less dangerous than guns when used as intended.
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?
What about all the other alcohol related problems like, violence, rape and disease?
Doesn't society have a compelling public interest to restrict alcohol, so that less people die?
Why do you need to be able to buy large amounts of beer, wine and spirits?
Being a victim of bad parenting can lead to problems like, violence, rape and disease. And?
Like Tucker wrote, your argument is asinine. Only a few want to completely prohibit guns while most want stronger gun laws. Based-on all of the gun related deaths in the US, there is a need for stronger laws. If you're a responsible gun owner and are legally sane, then your gun(s) will not be pried from your hands.
I wish Americans abused less, but I think it is apples and oranges where each merit different discussions in a more serious way.
Are you sure alcohol is far more regulated than guns are?
I'm not calling for prohibition of alcohol.
I'm asking if there should be further alcohol control.
The effects of alcohol spread farther and the benefits, are superficial at best.
What purpose does consumptive alcohol serve?
Besides the one class of wine for the antioxidants, why does anyone need to drink alcohol?
Long Island school bus driver crashes into house, charged with DWI - U.S. News
Interesting....so if that's the case then how is registering all firearms and banning 30 round magazines going to stop gun violence?
I like how you completely missed the point of that post. Allow me to spell it out for you.
There are laws banning possession of marijuana. People smoke marijuana. A lot.
There are laws in Oklahoma banning sodomy. We still have gay people and, of course, straight folks who do that.
There are laws suggested to curb gun violence. People still commit crimes with guns.
I'm tempted to insult you, but I'm having a bad day and would overdo it.
Although I'm not a fan of alcoholism, unlike other controversial products the primary victim is the person who chooses to ingest alcohol. However I would not be opposed to breathalyzers installed on commercial vehicles as well as cars operated by drivers with a recent history of drunk driving with use required at start up. Due to the potential for malfunction in an emergency, I'd say all vehicles should still operate in all cases but any over the limit readings automatically send alerts to the vehicles owners as well as law enforcement and the vehicle's location is tracked so the whoever needs to know may verify it was a false reading or an accurate reading leading to the intoxicated operator arrested and prosecuted if it was driven.
I'm also okay with discounted health, auto and life insurance premiums for those of us who do not engage in unhealthy lifestyle choices on a wide range of categories including excessive alcohol consumption. We can verify it at least to some extent by having a no cost drivers license special "no-alcohol" photo background color. This is already done for younger drivers in my state where those under 21 have a yellow background on the DL photo but for those 21 and over the background is light blue. It doesn't cost anybody any fees. It just alerts bars, restaurants and stores that the potential buyer of an alcoholic beverage was under the legal age at the time the license was issued and to check the date of birth to make sure he/she is now legal. This could be offered at no cost to everybody upon request regardless of age, then the insurance companies can offer a discount everyone with a yellow background. The only hassle would be bars, restaurants and stores would have to start carding everyone and not sell adult beverages to anybody with a yellow DL even if they're 50. Its not 100% full-proof but what is?
I think I got the point just fine....the people pushing for gun control are not the least bit interested in preventing firearms violence. Their goal, rather obviously, is to prohibit or otherwise restrict law abiding citizens from exercising one of their fundamental rights.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?