Jamie...my overall point is this, and you know it before I say it. *OBVIOUSLY* a dress does not cause rape - that is a ridiculous assertion. Furthermore, that attractiveness of a woman most likely is a minor factor in any case of rape. What is a factor is the mental state of the *RAPIST*, which state is often times exacerbated by a situation. For example, an unstable mind in a highly charged situation in which sex is prevalent - say a college party with a lot of alcohol - and in which his mental stability is further debilitated by situational factors - such as the consumption of alcohol, peer pressure, etc - will now commit a violent act which he would not, on a regular basis, be involved in.

In this case, no court of law is going to say he is excused because of of the dress of the girl, the attractiveness of the girl, the environment of a party, the consumption of alcohol, etc. In the end, the rapist, and the rapist alone, will bear sole responsibility for his act.

As a result of the rape - which rape frequently occurs in the above described situation - nobody calls for the elimination of parties, the elimination of alcohol, the change in dress of women, etc. The rapist is held solely responsible for his actions, even though any thinking person will understand that mitigating factors - alcohol, for example - did facilitate and exacerbate an unstable mind, and likewise often times will mean a woman unfortunately may let her guard down, and put herself in a situation of danger that she would not do regularly.

Can you agree to that?

Because if you can agree to that -- that nobody calls for the elimination of any anything which facilitates the act of rape -- then likewise guns are the same. No gun causes anyone to kill anyone. Mitigating factors cause one person to kill another person *with* a gun. It is the unstable mind that kills another with the available weapon. It is the unstable mind that finds itself in poverty and desperation. It is the unstable mind that finds itself caught up in the world of illegal drugs and turf wars. It is the unstable mind that consumes too much alcohol and finds himself in a fight in which weapons are brought to bear. But in no case can a reasonable person blame the gun.

mendax - you yourself make my point -- a gun is a TOOL used by a perpetrator. YOU make MY POINT. So if you think my conclusion is garbage, then you must believe your own conclusion is garbage.

You seem to have totally missed the point - something that a perpetrator uses cannot be compared to the clothing of the victim. I didn't think that I made this unclear, but apparently I need to repeat myself because you completely failed to understand.

mendax, I haven't missed the point at all. I purposely set up the argument that the dress is at fault SO THAT Jamie would shoot that argument down...because obviously, as I stated, the dress is not at fault.

I also set up the situation, the party, the alcohol as all excuses -- tools -- used by the perpetrator, to which you will reasonably conclude I am wrong -- none of those tools are an excuse for the rapist to commit his act.

And yet the act of rape isn't a momentary action...it is a sequnece of events, which often involves the 'grooming' - the preparing - of a victim. Alcohol is one such tool that is readily prevalent, and easy applied...and yet nobody calls for the banning of alcohol, despite the massive destructive influence of alcohol on this society.

I assure you, alcohol is a *far* worse thing than firearms when it comes to lives destroyed - physically, financially, emotionally, through actions commited while acohol is involved, from various forms of violence including rape, to murder, via hands, knives, guns, vehicles...

So if your assertion is that guns - a tool - should be eliminated from society because unstable minds use firearms to kill others, then I assure that guns should be the very least of your concerns given the other available tools of destruction and death that pervade our society.

What a nightmare Krellin and Putin33 going full blast at the same time.

"full blast" Sorry, tendmote, Jamie and I are having a calm, rational discussion. I'm not certain what your concern is. Perhaps if you read the thread you will not be so dramatic...

I note the 'exhausted' Tendmote hasn't said a word about Krellin's absurd analogies. Must be standards have slackened.

Krellin, how is a dress a tool of aggression?

Alcohol is terrible. If I knew how to lower alcohol consumption in society at large, I would. A ban on alcohol sales, whilst well-intentioned, has been shown in history not to work, and this is the reason why I wouldn't advocate for one. This is hardly a defense of alcohol, however.

The big difference between Alcohol and firearms is that guns have literally no other purpose that to commit violence. That is all a gun can do. Whilst alcohol often does lead to violence, that is not its intended purpose, nor its sole purpose. Hence we can can clearly see that the two are not directly comparable in this way.

mendax, there are many ways in which the socially destructive capacity of alcohol and guns can be directly compared.

For example, one could compare how many deaths per year are attributed to alcohol, and how many deaths per year are attributed to guns. that would be one simple way to directly compare them.

The fact of the matter is, alcohol is a very widely abused poison -- yes, it is a poison -- and it is addictive. And yet, this poison can be linked to more deaths per year than guns...and yet I can walk in to probably 15 stores within a mile of my house -- grocery stores, pharmacies, gas station, specialized liquor stores -- and walk to the counter and on the merit of my age alone buy as much alcohol as my cash will allow and walk away.

You say banning alcohol will not work -- agreed, it's been tried, and criminals have a way of supplying what is desired. In like manner, I defy you to remove guns from the hands of criminals.

But what you could do, what society could do, if they were so concerned, is advocate the strict regulation of alcohol - to at the very least minimize it's ease of access.

I can't even buy sudafed for my allergies with showing my ID and having the quanity monitored by the government ( because I'm clearly going to be cooking meth with it...)....and yet alcohol flows as freely as we please, despite it's inherent danger to our society.

And the thing about guns v. alcohol. Guns kills...got it. Alcohol kills, too. Guns tend to kill other people involved in violence -- drug crime, people involved in physical confrontation, etc. Alcohol kills innocent people driving down the freeway.

But the destuctive power of alcohol reaches far beyond death. It destroys lives, it causes people to lose jobs, it destroys marriages, it destroys health and adds a buden to our health care system, etc.

So...why the hard on to ban guns....which will never be banished from the hands of criminals, as we have never banned anything from the hands of criminals...but we can't even regulate alcohol beyond a magic date on a calendar?

Do you actually want alcohol regulated? Or is your point that we should do absolutely nothing about anything that is socially destructive?

A side note, firearm homicides kill more people per annum than drunk drivers, despite the widespread use of both cars & alcohol.

"t destroys health and adds a buden to our health care system, etc."

So do gun shot wounds. Yet fiscal conservatives want us to look the other way.

I see, so Putin is advocating that the current unregulated used of alcohol in the US is perfectly legitimate, in which people with diagnosed mental instabilities, people with documented history of violence, people with documented public offenses involving alcohol, are continued to purchase alcohol unbated?

So Putin thinks that the current laws regarding alcohol are perfectly acceptable, even though with regulation we could probably make a serious dent in the death and destruction associated with alcohol? And most of all, Putin would never, ever want to ban alcohol.

Got it.

Is that an accurate reflection of your views on alcohol?

@ Putin33

"Should we not blame anti-personnel land-mines for the 15,000 injuries or deaths which occur worldwide via landmines? Should not focus attention on Napalm for the effects of Agent Orange? After all, it's just an inanimate object right, the type of weapon is a non-issue."

Well, those land mines didn't plant themselves. Also, you're confusing napalm and Agent Orange. Napalm is an anti-personnel incendiary mixture with no long-term environmental effects. Modernized derivatives are still in widespread use. Agent Orange was a chemical defoliant used during the Vietnam War. It has no acute effects on humans, but with serious long-term consequences as a result of the numerous toxic chemicals found within.

Either way, the napalm tanks and Agent Orange mist fell from airplanes controlled by humans under orders from other humans. We should NOT blame the napalm, land mines, and AO. They're inanimate objects. They didn't design, build, and deploy themselves. God, it's like arguing with a 6-year-old.

"Is that an accurate reflection of your views on alcohol?"

Not at all. I'm in favor of banning alcohol.

Please answer my question. Do you actually want to do anything about alcohol? Or is the complaint about alcohol's destructiveness simply to get people to do nothing about anything?

"They didn't design, build, and deploy themselves. God, it's like arguing with a 6-year-old."

So anti-personnel mines and napalm should be legal in warfare? It's not the weapon, it's the people, right?

Are there any weapons which should be prohibited in warfare?

So Putin - even though alcohol is clearly something for which abuse is shown to cause death and destruction to others, you would prefer that we no take on the difficult (perhaps impossible task) of banning it?

OK...so no banning of alcohol, despite the known dangers to society, correct?

Just to be clear, you do agree that alcohol is often times abused, and that the abuse of alcohol is directly attributed to the deaths of innocent people.

You agree to that statement?

Uh Krellin he said he's in favor of banning alcohol.

Oh, I apologize, I misread his statement.

Putin, I apologize for misreading your statement about thinking alcohol should be banned.

Putin -- New question --- What happened the last time we attempted to ban alcohol? What was the result?

A decrease in domestic violence, liver disease, drunkenness, and overall alcohol consumption.

Please note my repeated attempts to ask you what your position is on alcohol regulation. You have yet to reply.

Was alcohol successfully eliminated from society? (I'll answer for you: No)

As a result of the banning of alcohol, was there a subsequent increase in crime and violence which resulted from the criminal world producing and importing alcohol? (Yes)

Were law abiding citizen denied their ability to use a product which now was the exclusive property of law-breakers? (Yes)

So would you agree that banning alcohol did not *eliminate* alcohol comsumption?

Further, would you say that as a result of banning alcohol, many otherwise law-abiding citizens became law-breaking citizens?

Was the law a success?

-----
Regarding liver disease - are you suggesting that the government should ban any substance that can be reasonably concluded is detrimental to one's health?

-----

Regarding regulation of alcohol, I absolutely believe that our current laws regarding the regulation are severely deficient, and damage our society. I would be in favor of starting with reasonable regulations. Of the top of my head, I believe that any individual that has been convicted of an offense related to alcohol - such as drunk driving, or domestic abuse in which is can be reasonably concluded that alcohol was a mitigating factor - should not be allowed to purchase and consume alcohol, under the threat of severe legal penalty.

If you are offended that it took me such time to answer your questions, that is because typically you steam-roll your way through a discussion without answering my questions, but since we both seem to be playing nice tonight, I am responding in kind. :)

Good night, Putin and others. Once again, we have failed to solve the worlds problems.

Oh well...we'll try again tomorrow.

World's, that is...though I'm sure that are a few here that would probably agree with worlds' as an alternate spelling...but that, too, is an entirely different discussion...

"Was alcohol successfully eliminated from society?"

That's not the standard of any law anywhere. Do laws against speeding eliminate speeding? Do laws against murder eliminate murder? Of course not. But they reduce it. Prohibition reduced consumption to 1/2 of pre-prohibition levels. That's success by any standard.

"As a result of the banning of alcohol, was there a subsequent increase in crime and violence which resulted from the criminal world producing and importing alcohol?"

We have no reliable crime statistics from the 1920s with which to verify this.

"Were law abiding citizen denied their ability to use a product which now was the exclusive property of law-breakers? (Yes)"

You yourself want to implement alcohol prohibition targeting specific people with criminal records. Why would you want to do this if you think the effort is ineffective?
Also private alcohol consumption was not banned during prohibition.

"Further, would you say that as a result of banning alcohol, many otherwise law-abiding citizens became law-breaking citizens?"

That's the case with any new law that regulates or bans something previously unregulated.

"Regarding liver disease - are you suggesting that the government should ban any substance that can be reasonably concluded is detrimental to one's health?
"

Didn't you just say that alcohol is uniquely harmful to human health? You even said that is *by far* worse than the damage caused by firearms? Since you agree alcohol is uniquely damaging why are you asking me this question? But to answer your question - yes.

"should not be allowed to purchase and consume alcohol, under the threat of severe legal penalty."

That is an odd policy, considering your previous statements about laws having no effect on the behavior of criminals. But thanks for your reply.

@ Putin33

"So anti-personnel mines and napalm should be legal in warfare? It's not the weapon, it's the people, right? Are there any weapons which should be prohibited in warfare?"

All weapons should be legal within reason. Obviously, land mines should not be placed in areas which are frequented by civilians. In practice, land mines should only be deployed in a conventional shooting war. Land mines have no place in low-intensity warfare. Also, all extant minefields should either be removed or at least clearly/permanently/obviously marked at the conclusion of hostilities. Land mines (when properly applied as described above) are perfectly legitimate area-denial systems.

Napalm (along with its modern incarnations) and white phosphorous should be completely legal as long as they are not used intentionally on civilians. Cluster munitions are fair game, too (as long as the design makes a reasonable attempt to mitigate the possibility of leaving behind excessive UXO)

Humans have been killing each other in pretty sinister ways for millennia. It *is* the humans, not the weapons. Napalm would have never been used on human beings if it wasn't for politicians.

As an aside, ALL drugs should be legal for human consumption.

If someone is dumb enough to take heroin, meth, or krokodil, then the government should NOT stand in their way. Darwinism in action...

Your answer about weapons of war belies the notion that weapons are merely objects, whose nature is irrelevant, whereas all that matters is the human agents who use them. You actually construct a case for the careful regulation of weapons of war, based on the *nature* of those weapons. For example, land-mines shouldn't be used in civilian areas. Why? You wouldn't say this about firearms - not in a million years would you say this. But the *nature of the land-mine* is such that using it around civilians is extremely dangerous, which is why children are the most injured/killed group via landmines.

And that's the crux of the argument, from my perspective. Weapons are not just objects that are only dangerous because of human beings, the nature of the weapons matters and makes them more or less dangerous, which effects how they should be regulated.

All weapons are qualitatively equal from a legal standpoint, but certain weapons SHOULD (morally incumbent on the state using the weapons) not be used indiscriminately. Gas attacks SHOULD be prohibited in built-up areas with a high probability of collateral damage. Gas attacks are acceptable against open troop formations in remote areas.

Presumably there is a legtimate use for landmines, if anyone wants to offer a suggestion...

"All weapons should be legal within reason."

I completely disagree with this btw

"In practice, land mines should only be deployed in a conventional shooting war"

In practise, there shouldn't be any conventional shooting wars.

"Humans have been killing each other in pretty sinister ways for millennia"

naturalistic fallacy - doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop it.

GunFighter, you're making the worst possible case for anarchy right now. If you really want to sell people, get your shit together.