Originally posted by Curval
Because crimminals do not tend to threaten people with lines like "Give me your money or I will force you to drink a 40 oz bottle of rum (which might be enough to kill you I guess)."
True, criminals aren't going to use a bottle of rum to rob you. Instead, they just may plow their two-ton manned missle into your mini-van filled with you and your kids and kill everyone on board. Which is more acceptable? Which happens more often?
The logic used to ban guns was that guns are dangerous and kill people, right? That they have no legitimate purpose, correct?The purpose was to eliminate deaths, right? Or, what was the purpose of banning guns?
Seems like a better, more honest approach would be to just admit that alcohol does kill more people than guns, but that people don't feel as threatened by alcohol, so they can look past those thousands and thousands killed by it every year.
I see no reason why you wouldn't back a ban on alcohol. It would save thousands of innocent lives. If guns killed people and had no purpose, seems like an alcohol ban is in order based on the same reasoning.