So why aren't we banning alchohol instead then?   That's clearly the instigating factor there.  It's something who's main property is "makes your brain not work well."

Or if we are banning guns... lets ban everything a drunk is worse off with.  Like a Car(more dangerous then a gun) Knives, heavy objects, pencils, forks, sporks.

Beer basically makes EVERYTHING dangerous.  Including steps.

Beer in general is much more dangerous then guns are in modern society... the only difference is... most people like to drink.  You aren't making pragmatic decisions to prevent really bad outcomes.  You are making biased decisions based on what you like and don't like.

Or are you pro prohibition of alchohol?

Better a few have bruised noses, then all have their arms tied behind their backs.

While some people do like shooting guns for relaxation, they do so in controlled environments (such as shooting ranges), where the chance of they harming someone are minimum. And gun owners  who use guns for such a purpose are in the minority.

There's nothign wrong with owning a gun for protection, provide it:

1. You're sane (This one's very important).

2. You know how to use it.

3. Take all the necessary safety precocions (keep the gun unleaded, dismantled and in a protective case, outside the reach of other people, especially children; and certainly not carry it with you on the street).

Also, hunting should be outlawed. It's unecessary and barbaric. Animals don't exist for humans' sick enjoyment.

And I never said that stabbing yourself in the foot should be illegal, though you should definately be evaluated by a psychiatrist if you do that.

Oh, and Kasz, there's no such thing as "forfeiting" rights.

Plenty of people shoot in their own homes.  Outside that, it's still more useful then Cigarretes, which have literally zero benefits and kill more people per year through personal use.

I don't really disagree with 1 or 2.  Except for the fact that it's very hard to define "sane."  Hence why you usually use criminal record as a barrier. 

As for 3.... hunting is actually one of the most humane way to get your meat.

Have you actually seen where the majority meat comes from?  Check out any book or documentry about factory farming there isn't anything more inhumane then that.

You're kidding right?  Or do you just see there being no such thing as a right?

You can't really name one right that hasn't been taken away by people.  Often times by their own voting.  Hence forfeiting.

That's a strawman. My argumentation is that a lot of real world causes (alcohol, drugs, lack of reflexes, fear, surprise, lack of training, anger, illness) can lead to accidents or voluntary but tragic outcomes, and that pragmatic decisions are taken and a line is drawn to limit personal freedoms depending on how much damage someone can do in a whim.

Cars are useful for economy to work, for kids to get an education and so on. A pragmatic risk assessment evaluation was taken to allow any citizen to drive one (over a certain age, under some qualifications and so on...) even though every car is potentially very dangerous in some cirumstances. Even a sober, perfectly mentally stable and pacific citizen is not allowed to build a nuke in his garage because in that case the pragmatic risk assessment had a different outcome.

I'm pointing out that while idealistic stances can be useful guiding lights, law is a very human thing that has to cope with what makes sense in the real circumstances of the community creating it.

and the pragmatic usefulness for alchohol? 

The thing that can make of those things dangerous and increases health bills?

Also, if someone actually tried to make a nuclear bomb.  I'm pretty sure the communty at large would pretty much ostrasize anyone attempting it, and any company or group stupid enough to sell such matierals to a private individual.

Aside from which, now your getting into regulation versus outright banning with stuff like driver's liscenses which is a whole different story.  Espiecally regarding children who are of limited mental faculties.

SOME regulation that does not prevent people from using their rights without prior abuse of said rights is fine.  The problem is when you outright ban things soley based on potential.

What do you mean with "pragmatic usefulness"? Real people want alcohol: they want it produced and they want to buy it and they want to consume it.

The pragmatic approach to regulation just means that the economic fallback and mass satisfaction are weighted against the possible risks for the community at large, instead of relying on the personal freedom of every individual to introduce chemicals of their choice in their body. Same with guns. And nukes.

The right to bear nukes sounds like artificial silliness, of course, being an hyperbole. But every so called personal freedom can be tackled at face value and brought down to the world of compromises.

That's why the two liner about almost punching people in the face is just what it is, and you had to muddle it into tying people's hand behind their back. The whole point of that idealistic stance was that almost punching is as acceptable as keeping your hand in the pocket. Saying that it's better to be able to do other things with your hands rather than being tied? Duh, really? But we were speaking about going around trying to almost punch people in the face. You see? It broke as soon as reality was brought in, and it had to go to hyperbole in the direction of freedom deprivation to say an obviety.

So...your arguement is.

If something is much more dangerous then something else... but more people want it to be legal... it should be legal.  Even if the benefits are lower.

Is that not just advocating tyranny of the majority?

Having the right to almost punch people in the face will mean people will be punched in the face accidently, however it's a better alternative then the legality of something being dependent on it's popularity.

The fact that I might like something less dangerous but be denied of it because it's less popular is absurd and illogical. 

This is why the US has the Bill of Rights... and why it is so hard to change  to prevent tyranny of the majority.  Though often people do wiggle their way around it, like finding a way to make drugs illegal when it was originally held that any drug was a constiutional right.  (See alchohol prohibition needing a constituional ammendment.)

I mean, it'd be like if peppermint schnapps was legal... but peach schnapps weren't because almost nobody likes peach schnapps and the effects of schnapps are horrible as being drunk causes things like drunk driving.

Except the peppermint flavoring could give you cancer and make you wig out and violently attack people as well.

How does this system make sense again?