LogFAQs > #965413769

TitanusGodzilla posted...

If we're gonna do something about guns and gun violence, why not do something for alcohol as well.

For the same reason why we won't restrict sugars and fats in spite of them being huge health issues that cause medical problems and increase insurance rates and general health costs (and let's be perfectly honest - things like preventable heart disease and diabetes/obesity complications kill far more people in a given year than gun accidents or crime ever do).

The underlying question always boils down to "Do the benefits outweigh the costs?" With a touch of "Do you have the right to enforce your opinions about how I should live my own life?" thrown in for good measure.

People will argue that alcohol serves a purpose, therefore, shut the fuck up. Whereas one of the main points of attack against guns is the argument that they serve no meaningful purpose in modern times (ie, no one needs to hunt for food and there's no value in sport hunting). The real question is whether or not you actually accept that argument.

But that also starts to brush up uncomfortably against the concept of being willing to dismiss things you don't personally like out of hand. Which is where most "video games are bad" arguments come from - because they're coming from people who don't play games and thus have no vested interest in supporting them (or in some cases, may have a vested interest in restricting them). Video games aren't a necessity, therefore, it should be perfectly fine to restrict or even ban them "for the sake of the children". But should people who don't play video games (or understand video games) ever be allowed to pass laws concerning video games? Should vegans be allowed to pass laws concerning the meat industry? Should people who don't drink be allowed to pass laws about banning alcohol (especially if they lack the historical context of Prohibition)?

Should someone who has literally never owned, used, or even been near a gun in their entire life be able to make authoritative and definitive statements about gun ownership, and have their opinions taken seriously in any meaningful way?

One could even argue that this idea has parallels with the "Why are most of the people with the strongest opinions about abortion old white men?" question. Should laws about women's bodies be passed by men who will literally never experience the scenario they're legislating against?

The biggest problem with representative government as a concept is when the representatives don't even remotely represent their constituents, and barely understand how their constituents live their lives at all (one of the pitfalls of the concept of the career politician).