Paul Ryan Criticized over "Thoughts and Prayers" Comment

[A Theist]

Bear in mind, alcohol isn't specifically designed to kill people. Sure, it does kill more people than all the illegal drugs combined, but that's not the intention.

Meanwhile, a gun is specifically designed to put a hole in something so it stops being alive; that's kind of a big difference.

No, but when people drink alcohol they do so with the full knowledge that their reasoning and reaction time will be impared, but some will get behind the wheel of a car anyway and possibly kill themselves and others in a car accident. People know the potential consequences of alcohol but they'll drink it anyway. Ban alcohol.

[The Grand Nudger]

Alcohol is more effectively regulated than firearms are.  Police officers routinely nab people for selling alcohol to a minor, or serving alcohol to a minor, or possessing alcohol as a minor. However, even in p2p background states, pos laws are not enforced even when an infraction is discovered. Someone can -die- due to a breach of gun regs.....and there's no guarantee they will be charged with the crime that led to the death, even if it's a felony offense.

Try trafficking unregistered and untaxed alcohol across state lines for purposes of unlicensed sale...see how that works out for you.

[Rev. Rye]

Because that worked out so well when we passed the 18th Amendment... the only constitutional amendment that had to be voided by the another amendment because Prohibition went horribly.

Alcohol exists to give a high to the person consuming it. A malum prohibitum, but certainly not generally considered a malum in se. It makes a lot of things far more dangerous than they need to be, but you don't have to do them; even beer commercials tend to warn people to "enjoy responsibly."

Meanwhile, firearms exist for the sole purpose of shooting, specifically, to shoot small bits of metal into things in the hopes that they'll stop being alive. Even if they tend to be designed for the types of killing that are government sanctioned (hunting, war), the fact remains that they were created for the express purpose of ending lives. I honestly can't believe I have to explain this.

Will a big blanket gun restriction law of the type you fear stop all mass shootings in the future? No. Are there ways we can use gun control laws to at least make it harder for the people who want to use them for evil purposes to get them? It certainly seems likely.

[henryp]

It gives a high is one of the side effects. Some other side effects are 'may make you a rapist, murderer, wife beater, addicted, suicidal, etc...' It's a dice roll.

A roll of the dice with other people's lives.

No more alcohol would be way more effective in curbing gun violence than whatever gun restrictions you want.

---

Side note, I don't fear gun restrictions. I don't care. Ban them all. Give out free ones on the corner. I'm not going to get shot. Just like I'm not going to get blown up by a terrorist. Rather than reacting to headlines, I count on my fingers and toes, and realize I'm at very close to no risk. And there's near no risk my family is going to get shot. But when I send my daughter to college, there's a reasonable chance alcohol will be responsible for someone attempting to sexually assault/rape her.

And in the incredibly unlikely scenario I were to be shot, it'd likely be by someone under the influence of alcohol.

So much of this violence can be traced back to a single source, and it's alcohol. Yet, nobody even talks about it. Because most people like drinking, so they don't want to mess with that because it hurts them. But plenty of people don't like guns, so they don't mind fucking with that right. Which is why it's bullshit. Everybody is so quick to forfeit other people's rights. That's American politics in a nutshell.

[The Grand Nudger]

If teetotaling nitwits want to add more regulation to alcohol, then they can certainly make their case.  Wouldn't it be nice if guns were...at least..as effectively regulated as alcohol, though?  Hey, maybe we can do both at the same time!

I know, crazytalk.

Fun fact, minors can legally buy long guns in some states...ar15s qualify. By minor, I mean.... people under the age of 18, not 21. Now personally, I;m not interested in handing out guns or banning them, because I'm not a fucking loon....I just think that we, as in gun owners like myself and gun haters...might benefit from sane gun laws that are actually enforced.

You clowns can talk about mass bear beanings the next time a nut buys a case of miller and kills 27 people with judicious tosses at their skulls.

[Joods]

If I ever get two extremely lazy and useless cats I'm naming them, "Thoughts" and "Prayers".

Buy a grey cat and a brown cat. Name the first one Smoke and the second one Bud. 

Make sure you buy them on April 20th. That date is important.

[Fireball]

All I have ever "killed" with any of my firearms is paper. That is an alternative use.

As far as the back and forth goes, there will never in the lifetime of the universe be an agreement between opposing parties, here, on either prayers or guns.

[Seraphina]

Talking with guys I know who may know more about what the military reports to civilians, they may not be required to by statute. In this case, I'd say that there should be a way for that reporting to happen. If he got a BCD from the USAF for beating his family, that should weigh on his ability to possess any firearm. If there is a domestic disturbance where I live in California, the police may confiscate all the firearms in the home. There is a method for getting them back, but it costs money. In any event, he brought that discharge on himself.

Bold is mine.
Reason #2458 why I'm glad I live in California, where law enforcement can and does confiscate firearms from violent people.

-Teresa

[The Valkyrie]

If I ever get two extremely lazy and useless cats I'm naming them, "Thoughts" and "Prayers".

Buy a grey cat and a brown cat. Name the first one Smoke and the second one Bud. 

Make sure you buy them on April 20th. That date is important.

No, I lost my can named Smoke last year to kidney failure.

[GUBU]

Talking with guys I know who may know more about what the military reports to civilians, they may not be required to by statute. In this case, I'd say that there should be a way for that reporting to happen. If he got a BCD from the USAF for beating his family, that should weigh on his ability to possess any firearm. If there is a domestic disturbance where I live in California, the police may confiscate all the firearms in the home. There is a method for getting them back, but it costs money. In any event, he brought that discharge on himself.

Bold is mine.
Reason #2458 why I'm glad I live in California, where law enforcement can and does confiscate firearms from violent people.

-Teresa

Come to Ireland then, in cases like that the Guards must seize firearms and revoke your licence.