if guns should be banned for causing death than so should alcohol (but we should not be banning alcohol)
You're probably very confused about that statement because of the name of our campaign. Not only is this expected but it gives us the chance to explain.
We all hear people on both sides of the gun-control debate use analogies for guns. For example, "Guns don't kill people like forks don't make people fat," or, "When a child hits someone with a stick you take the stick away." While these are both interesting analogies turned into arguments we have found the most perfect analogy: Guns vs. Alcohol.
Lets be clear. The actual goal of this movement is not designed to ban alcohol. In fact, if alcohol is was to be banned based solely on the information from this campaign, then the argument to ban guns will have more logical support (and we definitely don't want that). Rather, our goal is to show through logical and verified facts and sources that if alcohol should NOT be banned then gun should NOT be banned.
We all hear people on both sides of the gun-control debate use analogies for guns. For example, "Guns don't kill people like forks don't make people fat," or, "When a child hits someone with a stick you take the stick away." While these are both interesting analogies turned into arguments we have found the most perfect analogy: Guns vs. Alcohol.
Lets be clear. The actual goal of this movement is not designed to ban alcohol. In fact, if alcohol is was to be banned based solely on the information from this campaign, then the argument to ban guns will have more logical support (and we definitely don't want that). Rather, our goal is to show through logical and verified facts and sources that if alcohol should NOT be banned then gun should NOT be banned.
We should NOT be banning or restricting weapons like the AR-15
In our opinion these weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment (There is currently no law, precedence, or Supreme Court ruling directly supporting this.) because of the purpose and reason the 2nd Amendment was created with the assistance of the long and current position held by both the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court for over 70 years. In order for all citizens to"provide for the common defense" through a "well regulated militia" the people must have access to a reasonable level of military technology. If you took away military type firearms the only firearms available will be basic pistols, shotguns, and bolt action rifles. These firearms will not stand a chance against the AR-15s (M16), AK-47s, and other advanced military firearms around the world today.
As mentioned, this access to military technology should be “reasonable”. Reason-ability can be determined based on a number of factors. For example, can the weapon reasonably serve as both a self defense weapon in times of peace AND a combat weapon in times of war? What is the level of destruction the weapon is capable of? If the owner of the weapon went “rogue” will local law enforcement be able to stop the threat? All of these questions should be answered and analyzed as a way to interpret if the weapon is reasonable. Lets look at the M1A1 Abrams Tanks. This weapons purpose is ONLY for war. It cannot “reasonably” be used for self defense during a time of peace. With a full armament this vehicle can cause catastrophic levels of damage and death. If the owner of the vehicle went “rogue” local police would not be able to stop the threat (see 1995 San Diego Tank Rampage). Clearly this is a weapon that should be held exclusively to organizations designed for war (i.e. the military).
The AR-15 (M16) and other weapons built from its basic design, are military grade weapons designed specifically to "provide for the common defense" through a "well regulated militia". These weapons can be used for both war and home defense, cannot cause catastrophic levels of damage and/or death, and local police have the ability to confront and stop individuals who might use these weapons for evil. It is perfectly reasonable for these weapons to be available for the general public and because they are military grade weapons they are protected under the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
As mentioned, this access to military technology should be “reasonable”. Reason-ability can be determined based on a number of factors. For example, can the weapon reasonably serve as both a self defense weapon in times of peace AND a combat weapon in times of war? What is the level of destruction the weapon is capable of? If the owner of the weapon went “rogue” will local law enforcement be able to stop the threat? All of these questions should be answered and analyzed as a way to interpret if the weapon is reasonable. Lets look at the M1A1 Abrams Tanks. This weapons purpose is ONLY for war. It cannot “reasonably” be used for self defense during a time of peace. With a full armament this vehicle can cause catastrophic levels of damage and death. If the owner of the vehicle went “rogue” local police would not be able to stop the threat (see 1995 San Diego Tank Rampage). Clearly this is a weapon that should be held exclusively to organizations designed for war (i.e. the military).
The AR-15 (M16) and other weapons built from its basic design, are military grade weapons designed specifically to "provide for the common defense" through a "well regulated militia". These weapons can be used for both war and home defense, cannot cause catastrophic levels of damage and/or death, and local police have the ability to confront and stop individuals who might use these weapons for evil. It is perfectly reasonable for these weapons to be available for the general public and because they are military grade weapons they are protected under the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
alcohol vs guns
Here are a few comparable statistics (Unites States only) between alcohol and guns (See statistics pages for more information and sources):
ALCOHOL |
GUNS |
|
Deaths caused per year |
88,000 |
28,000 |
Suicides caused per year |
5,800 |
16,000 |
Total # of drinkers |
205 Million* |
N/A |
Deaths caused vs Total # of drinkers |
1 death per every 2,330 drinkers |
N/A |
Total # of gun owners |
N/A |
98 Million* |
Deaths caused vs Total gun owners |
N/A |
1 death per every 3,500 gun owners |
Constitutional Right? |
NO |
YES |
*Calculated based on the current estimated United States population as reported by the US Census Bureau (325 Million)
So, not only does alcohol kill more people in the United States per year but is also more deadly in comparison to guns. If the primary concern about guns is the amount of death they cause then we submit banning alcohol has a much stronger case. In the end, there is no "right to drink alcohol" like there is a "right to bear arms".
what the prohibition can teach us
The U.S. government thought it would be helpful to ban alcohol. They thought by banning it they could protect its people from the evil it causes. What did the government learn from this experience? The American people lose trust in their government when their government takes away something that is ingrained in their society.
The citizens responded to the 18th Amendment with secret underground bars, illegal importation, and the crime rate soared. Mafias and gangs flourished in this new environment as they took over the illegal trade of alcohol.
Could this be the future of America if guns are banned? If the 2nd Amendment is repealed? At least during the prohibition the American people still had a right to arm themselves to defend against the expanding violence in their neighborhoods.
The citizens responded to the 18th Amendment with secret underground bars, illegal importation, and the crime rate soared. Mafias and gangs flourished in this new environment as they took over the illegal trade of alcohol.
Could this be the future of America if guns are banned? If the 2nd Amendment is repealed? At least during the prohibition the American people still had a right to arm themselves to defend against the expanding violence in their neighborhoods.