I know they don't mix.
I am thinking more along the lines of the arguments antis use against guns, and how they relate to alcohol. Antis cite how many deaths are caused by guns. They cite that it is too easy for kids to access guns and hurt themselves. And most of all, they love to tell us that guns serve no purpose. That they are only designed to kill and have no purpose other than that.
So I ask, what benificial purpose does alcohol serve? Since it's tecnically a poison with no positive effecs on the human body, why does anyone need it? The antis love to ask us why we need something so dangerous. Well, why does anyone need something as dangerous as alcohol.
And speaking of dangerous, we've had what seems like a lot of school shootings recently. Around 50 studentshave died in 2007 from guns on campus. This has caused massive outrage and countless school programs about the dangers of guns, how to spot someone with a gun, what to do if someone has a gun, why it's wrong to own guns or have them on campus, etc.
What about the 1400+ students who have died from alcohol this past year? Why no national coverage for that? Why no programs to combat alcohol abuse and underage drinking? The FBI reposrts that around 13,000 people have died from firearms in 2006. According to MADD, moe than 17,000 deaths have been from drunk driving. Not alcohol poisoning, not fights involving drunks, just the drunk driving. And yet there is no outcry for a ban on alcohol anywhere at all.
This of course has been tried, and it failed miserably. Prohibition showed us one thing: banning something so popular only gives up all control to criminals. When they outlawed alcohol, only outlaws had alcohol. And boy what violences that caused. So why do people think it will be any different with guns? Why do they think a ban will magically work this time?
And do they realize that when you set a precedent for only bieng able to have something out of "need", it can also be used against them?
Anytime someone asks you why you need a gun, ask them if they drink. Then ask them what good purpose does alcohol serve and if they need it. Then ask them if they thinks it's ok for you to take away their right to drink because it serves no good purpose and it's unneeded. They won't have an answer other than "I like drinking, but guns are scary. I don't like guns."
And of course, that's only the negative. Whens the last time booze saved a life? Ever in the history of man? When the last time a young woman getting totally smashed actually prevented a rape? Ever? Can't say the same about guns. The negatives of both guns and alcohol are pretty clear. Both can be dangerous, both are part of more than 10,000 deaths a year. But how many of those 10,000 deaths were actually good? How many of the deaths the FBI reports were actually homeowners or young would-be-rape-victims protecting themselves? Probably more thana few. Now how many of the 17,000+ drunk driving or 1400 student alcohol deaths were good? None.
And oh yeah, where is the right to get plastered in the US Constitution?
I am thinking more along the lines of the arguments antis use against guns, and how they relate to alcohol. Antis cite how many deaths are caused by guns. They cite that it is too easy for kids to access guns and hurt themselves. And most of all, they love to tell us that guns serve no purpose. That they are only designed to kill and have no purpose other than that.
So I ask, what benificial purpose does alcohol serve? Since it's tecnically a poison with no positive effecs on the human body, why does anyone need it? The antis love to ask us why we need something so dangerous. Well, why does anyone need something as dangerous as alcohol.
And speaking of dangerous, we've had what seems like a lot of school shootings recently. Around 50 studentshave died in 2007 from guns on campus. This has caused massive outrage and countless school programs about the dangers of guns, how to spot someone with a gun, what to do if someone has a gun, why it's wrong to own guns or have them on campus, etc.
What about the 1400+ students who have died from alcohol this past year? Why no national coverage for that? Why no programs to combat alcohol abuse and underage drinking? The FBI reposrts that around 13,000 people have died from firearms in 2006. According to MADD, moe than 17,000 deaths have been from drunk driving. Not alcohol poisoning, not fights involving drunks, just the drunk driving. And yet there is no outcry for a ban on alcohol anywhere at all.
This of course has been tried, and it failed miserably. Prohibition showed us one thing: banning something so popular only gives up all control to criminals. When they outlawed alcohol, only outlaws had alcohol. And boy what violences that caused. So why do people think it will be any different with guns? Why do they think a ban will magically work this time?
And do they realize that when you set a precedent for only bieng able to have something out of "need", it can also be used against them?
Anytime someone asks you why you need a gun, ask them if they drink. Then ask them what good purpose does alcohol serve and if they need it. Then ask them if they thinks it's ok for you to take away their right to drink because it serves no good purpose and it's unneeded. They won't have an answer other than "I like drinking, but guns are scary. I don't like guns."
And of course, that's only the negative. Whens the last time booze saved a life? Ever in the history of man? When the last time a young woman getting totally smashed actually prevented a rape? Ever? Can't say the same about guns. The negatives of both guns and alcohol are pretty clear. Both can be dangerous, both are part of more than 10,000 deaths a year. But how many of those 10,000 deaths were actually good? How many of the deaths the FBI reports were actually homeowners or young would-be-rape-victims protecting themselves? Probably more thana few. Now how many of the 17,000+ drunk driving or 1400 student alcohol deaths were good? None.
And oh yeah, where is the right to get plastered in the US Constitution?
