What would a “subset” of alcohol be?
Yes.
Perhaps alcohol over a given proof, or maybe the sale of 12 packs. I think that’s analogous to banning guns with a given magazine capacity.
Then I rest my case. Your position is not consistent with the Constitution.
I’m still wondering about who you are referrring to in the title, because I don’t know of anyone who thinks that all alcohol is “good” and all guns are “bad”. Can you give us a real life example of this happening?
You shouldn’t shoot drunk, it fucks up your aim. 
How is not reasonable? Subsets of guns could be banned/limited and subsets or quantities of alcohol could be banned/limited. Some gun control advocates fall all over themselves to say they don’t want to ban all guns, but many quite clearly want to ban some guns, and for some reason want to conceal that fact. And nobody seems to want to ban any type or quantity of alcohol. Not sure why though.
So it’s not like billiards? Crap.
It’s not reasonable because you didn’t mention ladders or pools even once. How can we take you seriously?
How about anyone who thinks everclear should be legal, and semiautomatic or modern normal capacity firearms should be prohibited.
The UK occasionally goes through debates on alcohol availability, pricing and advertising and how to mitigate the worst excesses. So they talk about marketing to teenagers (alcopops, especially), the selling of cheap booze (again, usually alcopops, especially hard lemonade sold in two-liter bottles for a pittance), pub licensing hours, and so on and so forth.
I don’t know if those particular debates have taken place recently in the US but of course blue laws and dry counties still exist.
Because you’re refusing to explain your own opinion. It’s your thread. What kind of discussion can you expect to have if you won’t even explain who you are talking about? You’re accusing some undefined group of people of having an inconsistent view (and now you’re implying some of them are liars), so state who those people are so other posters can weigh in on the subject. If not, this is just another gun control free for all, and I’m not sure we need yet another one of those.
Who would this be? Either you are talking about real people, or this whole thread is a strawman argument.
I’ve given my own opinion at least a couple times now. I don’t think either alcohol or guns should be banned.
Was post #50 clear enough for you? And I don’t think I said certain people are liars, just that they want to conceal their real thoughts on some particular types of guns.
We know that; you’ve posted that in plenty of threads. Please identify the people who think alcohol is good and think guns are bad. You don’t have to name any names, but give everybody a general idea of who you’re talking about.
Keeping it simple would be you acknowledging that you don’t understand what my argument actually is (hint: it’s about risk assessment, not what you seem to think it is)…or acknowledging that you DO understand it by actually addressing it.
I noticed you cut out the ‘IIRC’ portion, but ok Hentor…my thought was based on something like this.
I don’t have a good cite for gun deaths world wide, but since the US is acknowledged to be among the largest wrt gun violence, I was just extrapolating the 30,000+ of our own and looking at places like Europe who have nearly no gun deaths (but have an even larger number of deaths due to alcohol per 100,000 than the US does) and coming up with a rough order of magnitude difference (certainly this is true in many European countries, where it’s actually several orders of magnitude). Even if we factor in wars (which obviously have a lot of gun violence and death), I’d say we are still talking about an average of many times more deaths due to alcohol than guns.
If you want to just talk about the US, then we are obviously talking about a bit less than an order of magnitude difference…unless we take out the suicide deaths due to guns and focus solely on homicides and accidental deaths. I would do that, but I know you and others would go nuts, so I left them in. According to this, there were around 100,000 alcohol related deaths in 2005 (in all categories). Using the same criteria, the number of gun deaths in the US in 2005 (all categories) was 30,694…or a touch less than 3 times. So, in the US (which is one of the highest nations for gun violence), it’s not an order of magnitude difference…merely 3 times more likely to be killed by alcohol than a gun (it’s actually more, since personally I think counting suicides in this is pretty silly, but what the hell).
That satisfy you that it’s more likely for you to die by alcohol than a gun, Hentor, or do you still dispute this (and of course this ignores that not all the population is equally at risk from gun violence…while much of the population IS roughly equally at risk from alcohol related death or injury)? Hell, DO you dispute this, since it’s hard to grasp what, if anything, your point in all this is.
Well, I do.
Alcoholic products are intended to make people feel pleasant. Guns are designed to kill. Yes, there are all sorts of exceptions to these intents, but still there’s a huge difference in the points of the two.
I wish nobody drank, but prohibition was a spectacular failure. However, in the world, gun control is generally quite successful where it is done, and in US states to the degree guns can be regulated, states with more regulations also have fewer gun deaths.
Anyone in favor of the assault weapon ban who is not a teetotaler. Those people do exist.
This is not what you claimed in the title:
“Why do the some of same people think alcohol is good think guns are bad?”
Who thinks that alcohol is good and guns are bad?
Okay, so based on this, you estimate the issues of risk and of likelihood of death by the raw number of deaths that occur in the population, and the relative risk by the number of deaths due to one factor divided by the number of deaths due to another factor.
Correct?