Alcohol and Guns


PDA






Prion
March 1, 2009, 08:27 AM
I woke up this morning thinking about alcohol and the wake of devastation it leaves in its path. Now the recovering alcoholic goes to rehab or AA meetings or some sort of treatment program. The gun crime perpetrator goes to prison for rehabilitation. Alcohol kills not only the drinker but also innocent bystanders when that drunk drives or does something else foolish. Families are destroyed, carreers ruined, lives lost, yet you don't see AA trying to outlaw liquor. They try and help people live happy, healthy, sober lives. MADD tries to stop drunk driving not outlaw booze. And why should people who enjoy alcohol responsibly be denied access because someone else has a problem with it? They shouldn't. Why then do gun crime groups like Brady always seem to be looking to ban guns rather than working on crime prevention or social solutions? Alcohol serves much less social good than a firearm, it is actually completely unnecessary. Firearms on the other hand get people outdoors hunting, fathers bond with sons, people can protect their loved ones. People can also commit suicide or kill their loved ones with a gun but as is so often the case alcohol is also involved. Alcohol is powerful as are guns, both can be abused in the wrong hands, why then should guns be the focus of determined efforts to outlaw them? Because we saw what happened during prohibition? It is addictive and people will commit crime to perpetrate its use? Thus bringing guns into the equation? So we could outlaw alcohol as long as we got rid of all the guns first? Where is the logic?

If you enjoyed reading about "Alcohol and Guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gamera
March 1, 2009, 08:30 AM
I completely agree with you. Sadly, logic has no place in society anymore...

RyanM
March 1, 2009, 08:36 AM
The attack on alcohol is identical to the attack on guns.

No one's pushing for an outright ban yet, because too many people would oppose it. Instead, regulations are passed incrementally. Like in Finland, it's illegal to have more than 1 oz. of hard liquor in front of you at any one time, in restaurants. Oregon is working on passing a law that states that restaurants and bars are no longer able to serve patrons more than 1 drink per hour each. It's the booze equivalent of an AWB. Might seem to make sense to people who hate thinking about things, but in reality, it will affect people that drink responsibly far more than it does those who are likely to be irresponsible.

Regulation, like registration, is typically just a prelude to confiscation.

4Freedom
March 1, 2009, 09:04 AM
Yeah it will be great one beer per hour. I suppose Al Capone's glory will come to Portland. Soon, they will make a ban saying waht food you can eat and what you can not. This government won't stop until they control every small part of our lives.

Gamera
March 1, 2009, 09:18 AM
RyanM nailed it.

It's the booze equivalent of an AWB.

I loled.

Prion
March 1, 2009, 10:25 AM
So the serious drinker brings in a flask or slams beers in his car or in the parking lot. What the hell good is this going to do? People driving around drinking before hitting the bar or restaurant is an improvement? Where there is a will there is a way, particularly with drugs and alcohol. When will people realize that regulations are political tools used by pols to control us and gain favor from constiutents who lack the logic and critical thinking skills to see the innectiveness of them?

Gungnir
March 1, 2009, 10:45 AM
Interesting from the original title I thought it was something competely different.

Although, it brings to mind the effect of bans on anything. 4Freedom mentioned Al Capone, he's got a point, back in the 20's prohibition era, the Government got a taste of what banning something previously legal does, Deregulation. Now think of the prohibition era, what effect did it really have beyond making organized crime rich? Not a great deal other than making 21st amendment. Some previously upstanding people were prosecuted for alcohol consumption Drunk and Disorderly arrests increased 41%, general crime increased too Murder increased 78% other serious violent crime increased 13%, felony convictions increased 561%

Here's what Rockefeller said about it
When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before

Now consider the scenario where there's a complete gun ban... Who will get rich? Who will break the law? I think there's a lot can be learned from the prohibition experiment.

frogomatic
March 1, 2009, 11:03 AM
Oregon is working on passing a law that states that restaurants and bars are no longer able to serve patrons more than 1 drink per hour each

now that's brilliant. :rolleyes: Seems more likely to encourage people to hop from bar to bar to bar over the course of an evening. Guy hits bar #1 gets a drink, drives down the street to bar #2 gets another drink, wash, rinse, repeat. yeah, that's really going to do some good. :barf:

Duke of Doubt
March 1, 2009, 11:08 AM
ARLover: "Alcohol serves much less social good than a firearm, it is actually completely unnecessary."

Oh, it's necessary. Lacking alcohol, the human species likely would fail to replace its own numbers through reproduction and become extinct. Alcohol and black plastic miniskirts have rescued humanity from biological oblivion.

One drink an hour? Then make it a TALL one, bartender. Frigging Foot-long Long Island Iced Tea, please.

chuckusaret
March 1, 2009, 11:15 AM
Many years ago in the Texas county where I lived you could not buy a mixed drink in a bar but you could BYOB and mix your own, but the bottle had to lay on its side, never allowed to stand it up. I never could figure out the reasoning behind this. The town drunks drank just as much, just as often, and got just as drunk.

Prion
March 1, 2009, 12:06 PM
I don't know Duke, I've got a slew of kids no thanks to alcohol. I've got nothing and no one to blame but myself!

jaysouth
March 1, 2009, 12:15 PM
control freaks (socialist/facist/totalitarian kool aid drinkers) preaching to the soccer moms and academicians.


After all, it's "for the children".

Wanna bet MADD doesn't want to ban alcohol (and firearms/fireworks/bicycles/whatever) to flex it's political muscle.

After intense lobbying by MADD cows, 70 year old medal of honor winners(and everybody else) have to show state issued picture ID or passport to buy a beer(prove they are over 21) in tennessee.

This 62 year old retiree has not bought a six pack in the miserable cowed state of TN since the law passed. I go to Ft. Campbell and buy 20 cases at a time from Class IV. I now buy my groceries and gas at Campbell so I don't feed the TN political paracites any more with sales tax.

Time for another tea party. The volunteer state ain't the free state any more.

Prion
March 1, 2009, 12:55 PM
MADD cowsThat is too funny, very good jaysouth. I didn't realize that alcohol was under attack as well, I guess because I don't drink.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
March 1, 2009, 01:41 PM
It's a good question, and the answer is simple: They (the gun ban crowd) are disingenuous; i.e. perpetrating a fraud. Their actual goal is NOT reduction of violent crimes occurring with the use of guns, unlike MADD whose goal IS to reduce drunk driving injuries and fatalities. Their goal is to ban all guns, without regard to the effects on society (which will of course be a net negative). They STATE that their goal is to reduce violent crime and suicides, AND their FOLLOWERS (most of them) actually (erroneously) believe that the policy pursued (banning guns) will have that effect, but the leaders of the gun ban crowd know better, and they are just manipulating their followers to accomplish their own end - to ban guns for the sake of banning guns, and taking power out of the hands of the people and concentrating the power in the hands of the government.

Almost everyone knows that banning alcohol does not work, since we tried that, but for some reason we cannot get it through our thick heads that OTHER drugs work the same way as alocohol, and that banning guns would do far more harm than good, and would obliviate one of our fundamental freedoms.

And you are correct that firearms have far more redeeming value than alcohol, but don't discount that alcohol does have *some* societal benefit, when used responsibly by the majority of citizens who use it. It allows us to blow off steam, and keep our collective sanity in trying times; it allows us to lose inhibitions which leads to communication & comraderie, helping to establish family and friend bonds that form the basis of a community - all the more important now, since we are in an increasingly impersonal, detached, internet-based society. And since our fast-paced society creates far more stress than a simpler society. I hate alcohol abuse as much as the next guy, but banning it is not the answer, and banning pot is not the answer either. Pot is actually far safer than alcohol, and makes people mellow, not angry, abusive, and violent like alcohol abusers. We need to educate, educate, educate, and treat, treat, treat the addicts - to any drugs.

Duke of Doubt
March 1, 2009, 01:54 PM
Winslow: "Pot is actually far safer than alcohol, and makes people mellow, not angry, abusive, and violent like alcohol abusers."

Not for everyone. I realize that in popular culture marihuana practically is a synonym for mellow, but I've had clients who got high on nothing but THC, and went totally postal. It may be a function of the concentration levels of the THC, but whatever it is, I want no part of that scene. The fact that it stays in your system for over a month is just a funny little irony. One client snorted powdered vicodin and percocet tablets all week, yet somehow passed a drug test within 48 hours after he knocked it off. But another client says, credibly, that he had last smoked a joint almost three months before blowing his drug test.

Who needs weed when God gave us scotch?

2ndAmFan
March 1, 2009, 05:56 PM
If they do manage an assault gun ban, or any gun ban, just who would be in the perfect position to make a huge profit from it?
The Mexican drug cartels already have transportation and distribution networks set up all over the US, and they already have access to guns and explosives which are illegal here. They just add guns and big bang makers to the list of goodies they offer for sale and...Instant Backfire! The people who gave the ban nuts their excuse for banning guns are making more money than ever, have more power than ever, illegal weapons are more available in the US than ever, and they're real full-auto, RPGs, etc., not semi-auto rifles! No background check or anything! You got the cash you got the gun, no questions asked! Want a little crack or crystal meth to go with that gun?
Alcohol prohibition was a national disaster and I hope the anti-gunners figure this out before it's too late, but I wouldn't count on it!

Duke of Doubt
March 1, 2009, 06:11 PM
Every once in awhile an old codger kicks the bucket and it turns out his cellar is stocked with enough old booze to knock out the Pittsburgh Steelers. Still afraid Prohibition could come back someday.

wrc376
March 1, 2009, 06:14 PM
god didn't give us weed?

DocBoCook
March 1, 2009, 06:14 PM
Anyone hear of the Whiskey Insurrection? they tried it Twice, once by tax, we fought it. Once by Law, Organized Crime fought it. What will we have to fight it with the third time? and BTW, Insanity by definition is Doing things repeatedly, and expecting a different outcome!!!

rogertc1
March 1, 2009, 06:14 PM
And this thread has what to do with guns? AS I am at home drinking my 2nd EVIL Old Milwaukee waiting for Supper. Think I'll have another one soon.

Prion
March 1, 2009, 06:18 PM
I don't drink or do drugs so I'm not filling my cellar with weed or booze but I am filling my safe with guns and ammo. I imagine your cellar is probably full of guns, ammo and scotch eh' Duke? Whoever inherits your lot is gonna have a grand ol' time!

4Freedom
March 1, 2009, 06:20 PM
What about mix drinks? That mean we can only get one shot of Tequila in our Margaritas now.. NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! :what::what:

BTW .. Nobody is taking my religion, guns or specially imported European or Local Microbrewed beers in my fridge. I am a beer conneuseur and respect this freedom. I don't want this to be like Somalia, where you can own an AK47 if you prove to be loyal to the government but if you are caught with a beer you will be thrown in a dungeon to rot. Freedom, means free for all. Of course, I imagine if they ban booze, guns will be on the list too.

DocBoCook
March 1, 2009, 06:21 PM
My safe will be filled with ammo and Weapons. My fridge with Insulin, and My closet with Jaegermeister. The rest, I don't need

rugerman07
March 1, 2009, 06:29 PM
Common sense should tell you guns & alcohol don't mix. Drinking a few beers doesn't make you a bad guy or an alcoholic. But, when your downing a few cold one's you have no business handling guns, unloaded or otherwise.

RyanM
March 1, 2009, 07:01 PM
It's a good question, and the answer is simple: They (the gun ban crowd) are disingenuous; i.e. perpetrating a fraud. Their actual goal is NOT reduction of violent crimes occurring with the use of guns, unlike MADD whose goal IS to reduce drunk driving injuries and fatalities. Their goal is to ban all guns, without regard to the effects on society (which will of course be a net negative). They STATE that their goal is to reduce violent crime and suicides, AND their FOLLOWERS (most of them) actually (erroneously) believe that the policy pursued (banning guns) will have that effect, but the leaders of the gun ban crowd know better, and they are just manipulating their followers to accomplish their own end - to ban guns for the sake of banning guns, and taking power out of the hands of the people and concentrating the power in the hands of the government.

Thus illustrated, the difference between a corporate entity, and a grassroots movement.

MADD isn't quite that "noble," though. A lot of the laws they support are the ridiculous, AWB-esque ones. And a lot of the laws already on the books are pretty ridiculous.

Like someone has pointed out elsewhere, maximum blood alcohol level to drive a motor vehicle. How much more ridiculous does it get? Who here can drink some booze, then tell me their BAC minute by minute?

Funny how laws about headlights are usually that they have to illuminate the ground for a distance of so many feet (easily measurable with a tape measure), not how many lumens they output (requiring specialized equipment). Laws for noise pollution / car stereo volume state that the stereo must not be audible past a certain distance (tape measure) rather than that it must not exceed a certain number of decibals (special equipment).

Yet with alcohol, it's some purely arbitrary number, which no one has any clue how to measure unless they have their own breathalyzer.

Obviously, the intent of the law is to discourage people from drinking anything alcoholic (or using mouthwash, Bianca, etc.) before driving, and/or to discourage drinking period (after all, you never know if some emergency may pop up, forcing you to drive somewhere), not to discourage actual "drunk driving."

I'd bet that if you had 100 people drive around with a BAC of 0.081%, and another 100 people drive around yammering on their cell phone, the cell phone people would cause more accidents. Actually, I bet if the drunk people had BACs of 0.20%, they'd still cause fewer accidents. Most vaguely responsible people, if they get that drunk, but still feel the need to drive home, will pull over to the curb and creep along at 5 mph. That's even the #1 sign for police that someone's driving drunk.

If the goal was to reduce auto fatalities caused by incompetence (whether inborn, taught, or consumed in a liquid form), the BAC garbage would go right out the window, and every single traffic stop would involve a 30 second quiz on traffic laws, and something similar to a field sobriety test that tests motor skills and reaction time.

For both, I'd probably have questions/activities go from least difficult to most, and if someone gets one wrong, the test stops and they're penalized based on how far they got. The law quiz would start with "what color are stop signs?", and the activity portion with "pick up a pencil without dropping it 8 times." And the physical part should be simple enough that anyone can try it themselves before attempting to drive.

That'd probably nail a lot more people who shouldn't be driving, than walking in a straight line and breathing into a thing.

And of course, if the gun grabbers actually cared about reducing the suffering of their fellow Men (idiotic definitions of "crime" be damned), then all inchoate laws would be stricken from the books, and the few remaining laws about what you can and can't do to people without their consent, would be enforced as strictly as possible.

GregGry
March 1, 2009, 07:23 PM
or using mouthwash, Bianca, etc.

This isn't true. Yes mouthwash will give you a temporary "BAC" of up to a .44 due to the fact its in your mouth. However if you swig it when you get pulled over, from the time you get pulled over to the time the officer gets you out of the car your fictional bac will be almost non existant. Not to mention you would be able to pass field sobriety tests as well.

Actually, I bet if the drunk people had BACs of 0.20%, they'd still cause fewer accidents. Most vaguely responsible people, if they get that drunk, but still feel the need to drive home, will pull over to the curb and creep along at 5 mph. That's even the #1 sign for police that someone's driving drunk. The average BAC of a OWI in my state is around a .18, and .20 most people have a hard time standing without falling over. Curbing at 5 mph isn't the number one sign someone is drunk since I have rarely ever see it. The main thing I see is people taking turns really wide, having trouble staying in their lane, and driving slower. Some people drive really aggressively too. Sure curbing at 5 mph would suggest that they are likely drunk, however its so uncommon compared to everything else thats out there.

Considering most people can't really stand without support at .2s, Its highly unlikely that they will be able to handle a car better then a person on a cell phone.

SpecialKalltheway
March 1, 2009, 08:52 PM
I view alcohol the same way as I view guns actually. I want to see less regulation on getting either of them and stricter laws on the misuse of these items!

Regulating at what hours, what days and how old you have to be to get alcohol punishes responsible people and all because others didn't use it responsibly.

Same thing with guns, these restrictions punish the good people just because a handful of people couldn't be responsible. How about we legalize everything and start punishing the stupid people.

Get drunk and drive, 10 years in prison.
Point a loaded gun at someone 10 years in prison.

Regulating items stops nothing, lets just punish those that miss use those items.

Curator
March 1, 2009, 08:55 PM
Alcohol was invented so ugly girls could have fun too!

Officers'Wife
March 1, 2009, 09:43 PM
Get drunk and drive, 10 years in prison.
Point a loaded gun at someone 10 years in prison.

I like the way you think. Still, the drinker should be driving. I recall one case in Cass County IN were a guy came out a bar, decided he was too drunk to drive and got in the bed of his pick-up to sleep it off. He was arrested, charged and convicted of DWI since the keys were in the ignition he had the 'intention to drive' under state law.

I would also add get drunk and shoot should also be a felony.

SpecialKalltheway
March 1, 2009, 09:50 PM
yeah I know a guy that got a DUI cause he was in the parking lot and had his keys on him. I had to sleep it off one night when I was in AZ and I knew from my buddies DUI that the keys had to be 15 to 25 meters away, so I unlocked my car then paced off 30 meters and put my keys under a rock and then returned to the car, sure enough the cops knocked on my window and wanted to give me a DUI, but when I told them where the keys were they didn't believe me at first and when they found them they laughed and said have a good night and left me alone.

There are plenty of laws against possessing a firearm while intoxicated let alone shooting it, not sure what the penalty is.

Ohio Gun Guy
March 1, 2009, 09:54 PM
One word....

Schutzenfest

Google it?


Das is unglaubisch!:D

modwerdna
March 1, 2009, 10:05 PM
how about cigarettes, there is no good healthy use for them, every smart person knows that tobacco kills whether you smoke it or chew it, or put it in any other body orifice. We all know it has formaldehyde and cyanide in it. It kills tons of people every year and the consequences of second hand smoke are still being discovered, it doesn't taste good, it doesn't get you high or make you smart or strong or anything good. It costs health-care and insurance companies tons of money and ruins lives and creates tons of property damage from fires, and the only people cigarette companies can deceive to start smoking are young or teenage kids and yet we will never ban it.

Owen Sparks
March 1, 2009, 10:13 PM
The problem is that as society becomes more collective, you are no longer seen as an individual but as a member society. Anytime you are seen as part of a group, you are seen as no more capable than the least member of that group. Therefore, if some people can't behave with X, then NOBODY can have X.

Officers'Wife
March 1, 2009, 10:14 PM
Hi modwerdna,

That guestion gives me mixed feelings. In the end it's a personal choice, while it does cost the insurance companies much money they exist to assign risks and most smokers insurance reflect the cost of their habit. My uncle and my Dad didn't agree on much but one thing they had in common was the adage that everyone has a God given right to <blank> up their lives as they see fit. Calling in government to protect smokers from themselves violates that principle. As for the fires cigarettes start--- I believe arson with property damage is a crime in most, if not all, states of the Union.

ReadyontheRight
March 1, 2009, 10:23 PM
It's hard to determine when Liberty actually died.

She had a good run...but I think she kicked off sometime in the late 1970s or early 1980s.

R.I.P. Liberty. :(

modwerdna
March 1, 2009, 10:32 PM
but the problem with that is that multimillion dollar companies have free range to use every sort of media, advertising, suggestive means, and anything else they can use to brainwash and poison innocent young children into think smoking is cool or something they should do. They especially use means of advertising that no one regulates and then they make sure that their product is as addictive as it can be. And with their huge profits from desperately addicted customers they buy up tons of premium growing land that should be used for America's food needs all because innocent impressionable kids get deceived and addicted. If big companies were doing this with cocaine or heroin to your children you would expect your government to step in immediately and help stop it because last I checked very few people can compete that. That's my point

ReadyontheRight
March 1, 2009, 10:39 PM
how about cigarettes, there is no good healthy use for them, every smart person knows that tobacco kills whether you smoke it or chew it, or put it in any other body orifice. We all know it has formaldehyde and cyanide in it. It kills tons of people every year and the consequences of second hand smoke are still being discovered, it doesn't taste good, it doesn't get you high or make you smart or strong or anything good. It costs health-care and insurance companies tons of money and ruins lives and creates tons of property damage from fires, and the only people cigarette companies can deceive to start smoking are young or teenage kids and yet we will never ban it.

but the problem with that is that multimillion dollar companies have free range to use every sort of media, advertising, suggestive means, and anything else they can use to brainwash and poison innocent young children into think smoking is cool or something they should do. They especially use means of advertising that no one regulates and then they make sure that their product is as addictive as it can be. And with their huge profits from desperately addicted customers they buy up tons of premium growing land that should be used for America's food needs all because innocent impressionable kids get deceived and addicted. If big companies were doing this with cocaine or heroin to your children you would expect your government to step in immediately and help stop it because last I checked very few people can compete that. That's my point

I think I could make very similar points about television, vacations, jewlery, restaurants, the internet....:rolleyes:

Jorg Nysgerrig
March 1, 2009, 10:42 PM
This post has wandered far enough off topic already.

If you enjoyed reading about "Alcohol and Guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!