user created polls & quizzes      

LOGICALLY, CAN YOU OPPOSE ALL PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS


[+] serious ballot by herzog

and not likewise support a complete prohibition of alcohol?

Stay with me here.

What are the main arguments against private ownership of firearms?

1) Guns kill people. They pose a risk not only to the owners by those around them.
2) Guns are often used in to commit crimes.
3) People don't need guns.
4) Irresponsible gun users are dangerous.
5) Guns are an unnecessary risk in society.

And so on.

But substitute 'alcohol' for 'guns' in any of those arguments and doesn't the statement still hold true? Alcohol kills far more people than guns ever have. It poisons the body, harming the individual, and leads to violence, reckless driving and other problems, harming innocent bystanders. It is often associated with crimes that would have otherwise never occured, and is certainly not necessary for living day to day. As you're reading this there is a good chance an irresponsible drinker just killed someone.

So logically, if you look at that list of 5 points and conclude that guns have to go, shouldn't you likewise conclude that alcohol should go as well, in fact should be a greater priority as it leads to far more fatalities?

Yes, logically you should be in favor of banning both or neither
No, there is a crucial difference that makes alcohol acceptable, but guns abhorrent
No alcohol is not a direct threat to someone where as a gun is
Register to submit choices


Ballot #112376 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:
Register to submit comments
You may still vote without registration

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM
smile bank:








similiar ballots:
54092. Would you favor legislature to outlaw ALL private ownership of firearms?
131379. Private Ownership Of Lands
76042. Should citizens be forced to sell private property to private companies?
139859. Is knowledge of firearms a good litmus test for who one dates?
97051. Why are some people so anti-gun ownership?
135132. Pregnancy and Home Ownership
112601. Buying Land : Explain "Ownership"
14054. Why are Liberal left-wingers opposed to gun ownership?
95342. US pressures Chile to oppose Venezuela?
95614. Do you oppose the profiling of white males?



COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes, logically you should be in favor of banning both or neither
And don't even consider not banning cigarettes in the process. Add the deaths caused by guns, alcohol, car wrecks (not involving alcohol) and all diseases together, then double that number and you get the total deaths caused by cigarettes. Nasty things.
Really we ought to treat all these things the same: require you be over a certain age to obtain them, limit where you can take part in such activities (you can't take your beer or your shotgun to school with you), punish those who sell them to individuals who shouldn't have them and punish anyone who breaks the law while either drunk or armed.
Voted : Yes, logically you should be in favor of banning both or neither
I like

Bikes N Beer
Guns N Girls


Really we ought to treat all these things the same: require you be over a certain age to obtain them, limit where you can take part in such activities (you can't take your beer or your shotgun to school with you), punish those who sell them to individuals who shouldn't have them and punish anyone who breaks the law while either drunk or armed.
by herzog

hehe True. But we've already got laws like that in place. The problem is they're not enforced.

Case in point... My neighbor (who as of two months ago got his third DWI conviction in as many months) asks me if I want to sell any of my rifles. He wants a gun but, as he says, he "can't get one the legal way anymore".

I told him no. I do not sell my guns to anyone. The way I see it, if he's so damn stupid that he can't stay out of a car while drunk, then he has no business owning a gun. He's also not telling the truth either because about three weeks ago I saw his son (who lives in the same house) out squirrel hunting. And it wasn't with a sling shot either. If the neighbor's probation officer and the local sheriff's office were doing their job, they'd check up on their probationers and take guns out of the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them.

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
Texas State Rep. Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp

Since I'm not for either :

Hell NO, You ain't ta' taken me shine or me triffle, er, trifile, uh, me boom stick. Now get ta gettin' whilst da gettin's a good. Commy!

Voted : Yes, logically you should be in favor of banning both or neither
Nuck, I loved the blonde on that Texas Hardtails show. She was pretty much the only reason I watched that show :-D
Voted : Yes, logically you should be in favor of banning both or neither
I voted. See^
I see your point, and I think Alcohol consumption (particularly in britain) is getting out of control.

But.

Alcohols was originally, and is primarily, designed to bring pleasure, the violence etc is a negative side effect that results from OVER consumption.

Guns however were designed with one purpose in mind; to send little explosive bullets tearing through the skin and flesh of a living thing. The few pleasureable activities involving guns (hunting etc, if you're into that sort of thing) could just as easily be catered for by the temporary hire of the necessary guns for the days/days, no need for private ownership.

The few pleasureable activities involving guns (hunting etc, if you're into that sort of thing) could just as easily be catered for by the temporary hire of the necessary guns for the days/days, no need for private ownership.
by Doctordraw

That might be allright for some areas/countries, but there are those who do need and depend on private ownership. With so many people living in rural environments, that segment of the population is larger than one might think.

Unfortunately Doc, People in todays world (which pretty much hasn't changed a hell of a lot in the last couple thousand years) still face a real danger of from violence every where and at any time. Personal protection is necessary at times. Police are not on every corner, nor should there be. In my home, traveling and in normal everyday circumstances a crime against you or someone in your presence can occur.

I don't believe only Law Enforcement should carry firearms. The whole point of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is for personal protection from tyrannical governments, unconstitutional home invasion and the defence of liberty.

There are responsible people capable of safe possession and use of weapons. We should not lose our rights because of criminals, fanatics and the religous right wingers (the other fanatics) who want to save the world by taking away our means to protect ourselves.

Gun control and banning laws are frivolous. The problem isn't guns, it's stupidity. Anybody bent on murder or causing harm can just as easily use another weapon. A broken bottle, a knife or a blunt object is just as effective. Guns aren't the only means to kill.

In 2004-
-Handgun- : -Other gun- : -Knife- : -Blunt object- : -Other weapon-

-8,299- : -2,355- : -2,132- : -759- : -2,593-

The statistic shows three times more homocides committed by hand guns than other guns or knives, but the age group of the victims is 18 to 24.

Gangs, rowdies and drug related crimes by an irresponsible class of youngsters don't merit banning all guns! Gun bans only leaves honest folks unprotected from gun toting criminals and police.
A gun ban will make the honest gun owner a criminal for not surrendering his gun though no actual gun related crime is commtted.

This ones cool
I'l take three

True, passive. On two occasions my father had to use his gun to protect his home and business. If he didn't he or my mother might not be here today. Luckily though, he's smart enough and educated in firearms enough that he didn't have to fire a single shot. The criminal was held at bay and was arrested as soon as the police got there.

I don't live in an area with a high crime rate at all. But I do feel comforted to know that if someone decides to prey on me because they know it will take the police 30 minutes to get here, I have the means to protect myself and my family. Just like the little old lady in the next county over who fired her shotgun though her front door when an intruder refused to answer her call of "who's there" and kept trying to bust open the door. The police later caught him after he managed to limp off with shotgun pellets in his leg. He had thefts and sexual assaults on his record.

Voted : Yes, logically you should be in favor of banning both or neither
I oppose all government ownership of firearms.
Voted : No alcohol is not a direct threat to someone where as a gun is
Although I do support the 2nd Amendment as I myself own a gun,for the purpose of the ballot I think that logically you can wish to ban guns and not ban alcohol since a gun is a direct threat to society where as alcohol is an implied threat.A man walking down the street with a can of beer is not a threat to anyone,perhasp only himself since he might be disorientated and fall.However a man walking down the street with a gun is a potential lethal force to all and anything in his range,including himself.
Voted : No, there is a crucial difference that makes alcohol acceptable, but guns abhorrent
Good ballot.

Alcohol is a substance that can be the cause of both happiness and horror, it is a drug.

A firearm is a weapon that can bring no happiness to anybody, its sole purpose is to end life.

^Not. A firearm is a deterent to the same degree as a tacticle nuclear weapon prevents attack. An agressor thinks twice before taking foolish risks.
I keep a baseball bat by my front door, it has the same effect.
^A firearm can preserve happiness for the family that uses it to defend their home. Or the nation that uses firearms to divorce itself from an oppressive government across the Atlantic.
I think firearms create crime more than they prevent crime.
"Alcohols was originally, and is primarily, designed to bring pleasure, the violence etc is a negative side effect that results from OVER consumption."

But does the original purpose even matter? Cigarettes are intended for pleasure, they still aren't very good for you. Regardless of intentions alcohol is a poison that easily outkills firearms. And true in moderation it is safe, but likewise when firearms are used safely and properly they are perfectly safe.

" Guns however were designed with one purpose in mind; to send little explosive bullets tearing through the skin and flesh of a living thing. The few pleasureable activities involving guns (hunting etc, if you're into that sort of thing) could just as easily be catered for by the temporary hire of the necessary guns for the days/days, no need for private ownership"

And alcohol was produced for one purpose: to kill living things. Yeast produce it as a waste product to defend themselves from other organisms, kind of like sending out an cloud of nerve gas every time you eat. And if people want a good buzz, but safely, couldn't we simply lock them up in a private jail cell while they are drinking as a matter of law and leave them there until they are totally sober, say 24 hours after their last drink? So confiscate all privately held liquor and require people to report immediately to jail if whenever they want the needless and barbaric pleasure that comes from drinking organic poison. If we did that deaths would be greatly reduced, but I hardly think that would be very well received among the general populace.

" Alcohol is a substance that can be the cause of both happiness and horror, it is a drug."

And guns are a tool that can be employed both in the carrying out of a crime, and for virtuous causes such as self-defense or liberating an entire nation. Alcohol, at it's best, shortens your life somewhat to give you a pleasant feeling, at it's worst it kills about 90,000 people per year. Guns at their best save innocent lives, at their worst kill about 30,000.

It seems to me that if you compare the pros and cons of each then firearms still come out ahead: they kill less people and actually have the potential to save innocent lives. Alcohol kills far more people and offers only the mild bonus of brief intoxication.


Voted : Yes, logically you should be in favor of banning both or neither
But I won't. I can take a bottle or a drink out of your hand. Not so with a gun. And a gun carries with it an ages-old, society-driven myth that all it takes is point-and-shoot. Nothing could be farther from thje truth. I can't speak for every member of this post, but I can say that I am highly trained in the use of firearms, and I'm the first person to be willing to shun them. It takes more than point-and-shoot. There's a mindset behind gun use/ownership that most lifeforms are sorely lacking.
nobody ever raided a post office with a can of cider, or wiped out an entire primary school class with a bottle of vodka. I can understand people who are involved in sport, farmers, etc..., but not the avergae man in the street having a gun.
*There's a mindset behind gun use/ownership that most lifeforms are sorely lacking.*

A gun in the hand of anyone unfamiliar and untrained to handle the weapon responsibly is a crime in itself.

Anyone claiming guns are dangerous or unsafe has tremendous obsticles to overcome in proving the point.
To the contrary, considering the amount of training that a soldier is required before being qualified as *Combat Ready* and the number of firearms there are in a combat zone, there are remarkably few incidences of unintentional injury or death.
If *Guns* were unreasonably dangerous and unsafe to handle, would we provide them to soldiers and law enforcement, the people we trust to protect and serve us?

The fact is, a gun is a remarkably predictable, safe machine, precision engineered for preformance, ease of use and accuracy. With the exception of alcohol and tobacco, the sale of any product in the US is subject to consumer protections, product safety, and, negligence and criminal liability laws. The US Government regulates the distribution and sale of firearms to both civilian populations, law enforcement and military personel. They are a proven safe product subject to proper care, use and training, in exception of unintention or intentional *Misuse*.

Can the same be said for Alcohol or Tobacco?

"nobody ever raided a post office with a can of cider, or wiped out an entire primary school class with a bottle of vodka"

No one ever plowed a truck into a crowd of people because they were under the influence of a firearm. Nobody ever crashed an exxon tanker because they were too hopped up on ammo to steer.

Why is shooting people in a post office wrong, but killing far more people on the road acceptable?

"Why is shooting people in a post office wrong, but killing far more people on the road acceptable?"

People who kill through drink driving, although completely and utterly foolish and pathetic, are not evil. Murderers who shoot innocent people in a post office, are evil.

I do not deny your right to own a gun to defend yourself Herzog, I deny the criminals that could own a gun due to them being legal the right to own a gun. If you could show me figures that suggest gun crimes are at the same levels in places that legalise ownership of guns as they are in the places that make it illegal to own a gun, then i might change my mind.





About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | © 2010 BestAndWorst.com All Rights Reserved