I’m not following the raping of 15 year old Australian girls argument very well.
Is the claim that the number of rapes went up after the gun ban because the 15 year old girls didn’t have guns to protect themselves? Or that the rapists were sexually frustrated by their lack if guns? It seems like gun ownership would be helpful to a rapist.
Apparently not you, if you think that constitutes satire. Or a fair representation of a position. Or both. But as this thread shows, you do have a tendency to see things that no one else does, so maybe the voices in your head are hilarious.
By the way, are you pretending there are no restrictions on access to alcohol?
I’m sorry Gyrate, I guess satire isn’t as funny to the side that’s position is being accurately skewered. I’ve played it before my girlfriend and co-workers and they all laughed, but they aren’t gun prohibitionists so the joke wasn’t on them.
Whoever said that? I can go to a store at any time and buy as many bottles as I want, as high a proof as you want, without a background check, without registration. My guess is you can too. Alcohol related deaths are 75,000 a year, but you all consider that worth it so you can get your buzz on. Heck even your favorite gun researcher Kellerman found just one person who ever takes a drink in the household increases the risk of homicide about the same as does the presence of handguns, yet he and you all only wanted to get rid of the handguns. We even have examples of mass killings of children resulting from drunk driving…
So with all do respect, I’m saying any of you gun prohibitionists who aren’t also alcohol prohibitionists and teetotalers are a bunch of hypocrites. 
Much like gun suicides don’t count as gun violence, unintentional drunk driving victims don’t count either. Try again.
I’m not a Prohibitionist in either case, but if there were hordes of “alcohol rights” supporters who joined the National Booze Association and were frightened to go anywhere in public without a concealed flask and who vomited trite slogans about how their stockpiles of liquor bottles were a bulwark against tyranny and how you would only take them from their dead liver-spotted tremulous hands, I’d think they were pretty goddamned ridiculous too.
It’s funny in the way that those jokes based on “Obama is a Kenyan” are funny - they’re hilarious if you’re one of those people who think the other side are exactly like the strawman you’ve built of them. For the reality-based community, not so much.
Yup. Depending on location, of course, in which case it depends on whether it’s a Sunday or whether I appear to be drunk or what I actually want to buy (some states limit the alcohol content of beer, for example) or a hodgepodge of other state and local ordinances. And all assuming I have ID. Pretty much like the hot mess of local firearms regulations.
I’m sorry - are you operating under the impression that I want to ban all guns? It’s those voices in your head again. The same ones telling you that “guns” and “alcohol” are directly comparable in all respects.
The *purpose *of alcohol, such as it is, is inebriation. One of the unintended *effects *of the inebriation is behavior that leads to death, damage and destruction. But the purpose of guns, as weapons, is to shoot things. Maybe targets or deer or people, but the primary purpose is to put a hole in something. Do you understand the difference? Are you capable of doing so?
Hey, we haven’t talked much about concealed carry of weapons outside the home. Check out this hero:
This is an interesting debate, and I want to take a step back to share my opinion in more general terms. I think most rational people can agree that there are a myriad of products out there, from guns to automobiles to alcohol, that when abused or mishandled can lead to death. But I’ve always seen an inherent fallacy in comparative statistical analysis between these “weapons” that kill. (Weapons in this case referring to anything that can be determined as a cause of death). The statistics don’t address the underlying reasons why people go out and do stupid things that lead to death, whether it’s driving drunk or using a firearm to commit a crime. I know it’s an overused cliche, but it doesn’t change the fact that people kill people, and guns are just a means to that end. Until the decay in morality, economic opportunities, social inequality, and personal responsibility is addressed, until we can work on a solution that addresses why people feel the need to be violent and irresponsible and generally have no respect for one another, it doesn’t matter what weapons are used to kill one another, imo. People who have that desire or impulse to kill will find a way to achieve their goals. (This argument excludes, to a degree, accidental deaths. There is an argument there as well, but I’ll leave that for another day). My issue with the great gun debate isn’t whether or not people should be allowed to own guns. My issue is the conservative view that people should be allowed to own guns without any sort of accountability or responsibility for owning a weapon that was designed for the sole purpose of taking a life. If you fight for the right to own a gun without going through a background check or registration process, then you fight for the right of criminals and the mentally ill to purchase a gun at a trade show or through straw purchases. I think as long as criminals can get their hands on guns then responsible citizens should be allowed to do the same, but I don’t think that we need to throw our hands up in defeat and say that gun control measures won’t make a significant impact in crime levels and therefore it’s a pointless measure to take. As a society we have a compulsion to see immediate and drastic change, and we look for the quick solution to a problem that has taken generations and decades to develop. We need a long term and comprehensive approach to the general problem of people taking lives with any weapon, and just because gun control isn’t the Great Solution to the problem doesn’t mean it’s an invalid or pointless endeavor. It’s a step, albeit a small one. A tiny stopgap that might save a few lives while we simultaneously focus on the more pervasive and pressing concern of why people need guns in the first place.
Sure, but that’s only because you didn’t see the story about that guy who broke into a school and forced a class of kindergartners to do jello shots until they all developed cirrhosis. DAMN YOU LIBERAL MEDIA!
Alcohol prohibition wouldn’t prevent any deaths, drunks would just take heroin or Oxycontin.
Are you kidding me? I guess you have to rationalize your hypocrisy somehow.
Translation: how dare you point out the flaws in my analogy?
No, I’m operating under the impression that you at least want to ban “some” guns. It’s easy to identify that type of person because they always go around saying they don’t want to ban “all” guns.
“All” respects? You really like to insert those absolute statements into others positions. I guess that makes your straw man arguments easier.
Sure I understand the difference. Both have pros and cons. The benefits of guns are greater and the cons fewer.
There is no flaw in my analogy. So sorry.
If it saves just one life, isn’t it worth it? 
Dude, we demolished your arguments 13 pages ago. Now we are just laughing at you. But, by all means, keep going, for the entertainment value alone.
Not so far as you’re able to tell, no. Again: voices, head, reality, yadda yadda yadda.
Yes you are.
Even the entertainment value is waning for me. I think the guy is mentally challenged, which seriously saps the fun out of it.
Dude, you live in a fantasy land. Are you drunk right now?