Alcohol deaths vs. gun deaths

vomikus39

My personal favorite is Guns vs. Angry Housewives....

Well done my Greek friend

DS1119

know1 wrote:

Guns are not made to protect. They are made to kill. They do not protect anything.

Really?

DS1119

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

bootlegger10 wrote:

Many Americans lack the respect to drink responsibly. You will never quell alcohol deaths and violence because a good portion of the population still refuse to see it as an issue.

This thread was not meant to quiet the gun debate, or to limit gun control. This thread was a reaction to the amount of hate thrown at legit, responsible gun owners. I just wanted to show that people are so selfish that they will not even consider giving up their right to get a buzz to save lives. They want to take guns away from people who want them for protection, but they will not even consider giving up "a buzz" to save a life.

This thread was meant to show the hypocrisy. Keep the gun debate going, but I don't want to hear about this self-righteous crap that you all actually give a damn about others. If people did, they would support banning alcohol too. The debates is about guns, and guns only. Not saving people.

US alcohol impaired driving fatalities per 100,000= 3.3 (2010 figures)
Canada alcohol impaired driving fatalities per 100,000= 3.18 (2009 figure)

Sources:
http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-dri ... statistics
http://www.madd.ca/media/docs/MADD_Cana ... _FINAL.pdf

Our countries compare with regards to the fatalities that occur as a result of drunk driving. A problem for both of us.

Our countries both have mental illness, violent video games, and criminals. We are very, very similar.

The US boasts a homicide by gunfire rate that is over 6 times as high as Canada though.

What variable accounts for this discrepancy?

And those numbers may or may not be correct but also at the same time comparing Canada, a country with very similar land mass, to the US although Cnaanda has a less total population than the STate of California really isn't fair. They are culturally very different. Would a better comparison of Cnanada to the US would be to compare that country to ALaska? Or to the STates that have similar population densitys? Comparing to areas of the US that don't have rampant gang and crime issues ( btwgangs and obviously crime is not a legal gun issue...that's a socieal issue). Again, people miss the point, this is not a gun issue this is a crime issue.

Zoso

DS1119 wrote:

know1 wrote:

Guns are not made to protect. They are made to kill. They do not protect anything.

Really?

you are the made to protect? look at the stats and find out how many people are actually 'defending themselves' with guns?

moreover... the world acknowledges that alcohol is an issue world wide and should be addressed. guns on the other hand are only an issue in America and should also be addressed. Look at all stat's per capita as we all know USA has a larger population then all other countries in first world.

DS1119

Zoso wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

know1 wrote:

Guns are not made to protect. They are made to kill. They do not protect anything.

Really?

you are the made to protect? look at the stats and find out how many people are actually 'defending themselves' with guns?

moreover... the world acknowledges that alcohol is an issue world wide and should be addressed. guns on the other hand are only an issue in America and should also be addressed. Look at all stat's per capita as we all know USA has a larger population then all other countries in first world.

Every person that legally posses' a gun RIGHT NOW for the purpose of protecting themselves, is in fact protecting themselves. No different than a woman who carries mace in her purse. Even if she nevers uses it, was it still protecting her?

Zoso

DS1119 wrote:

Zoso wrote:

[quote="DS1119"

Really?

you are the made to protect? look at the stats and find out how many people are actually 'defending themselves' with guns?

moreover... the world acknowledges that alcohol is an issue world wide and should be addressed. guns on the other hand are only an issue in America and should also be addressed. Look at all stat's per capita as we all know USA has a larger population then all other countries in first world.

Every person that legally posses' a gun RIGHT NOW for the purpose of protecting themselves, is in fact protecting themselves. No different than a woman who carries mace in her purse. Even if she nevers uses it, was it still protecting her?[/quote]

can't carry out a mass murder with mase.. I'm all for rights but you don't see that the only variable in America compared with other countries is the gun issue and the amount of them?

DS1119

Zoso wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Zoso wrote:

[quote="DS1119"

Really?

you are the made to protect? look at the stats and find out how many people are actually 'defending themselves' with guns?

moreover... the world acknowledges that alcohol is an issue world wide and should be addressed. guns on the other hand are only an issue in America and should also be addressed. Look at all stat's per capita as we all know USA has a larger population then all other countries in first world.

Every person that legally posses' a gun RIGHT NOW for the purpose of protecting themselves, is in fact protecting themselves. No different than a woman who carries mace in her purse. Even if she nevers uses it, was it still protecting her?

can't carry out a mass murder with mase.. I'm all for rights but you don't see that the only variable in America compared with other countries is the gun issue and the amount of them?[/quote]


And you can't stop a home invasion with mace either.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

DS1119 wrote:

Every person that legally posses' a gun RIGHT NOW for the purpose of protecting themselves, is in fact protecting themselves. No different than a woman who carries mace in her purse. Even if she nevers uses it, was it still protecting her?

Well then DS... don't pay it lip service.

If these guns are for protection... then people should be walking to the mall with their bushmasters draped over their shoulder. People should be going to the movies in Aurora with their AKs sitting on their lap. Go all in with the assault rifles and handguns and let them serve the purpose you flaunt.

The instances we hear of people defending themselves with their assault rifles are far and few between- if at all. The instances we hear of people using these types of weapons to inflict damage on a large and rapid scale are numerous as we know.

Please answer the following question (and question 2 if applicable):

1. Would a double barrel 12 gauge shotgun not be an effective deterrent to someone trying to break into your house?

2. If the answer to question 1 was 'yes'... then why the need for assault rifles? If a shotgun will suffice for protection, why introduce assault rifles to your streets?

DS1119

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Every person that legally posses' a gun RIGHT NOW for the purpose of protecting themselves, is in fact protecting themselves. No different than a woman who carries mace in her purse. Even if she nevers uses it, was it still protecting her?

Well then DS... don't pay it lip service.

If these guns are for protection... then people should be walking to the mall with their bushmasters draped over their shoulder. People should be going to the movies in Aurora with their AKs sitting on their lap. Go all in with the assault rifles and handguns and let them serve the purpose you flaunt.

The instances we hear of people defending themselves with their assault rifles are far and few between- if at all. The instances we hear of people using these types of weapons to inflict damage on a large and rapid scale are numerous as we know.

Please answer the following question (and question 2 if applicable):

1. Would a double barrel 12 gauge shotgun not be an effective deterrent to someone trying to break into your house?

2. If the answer to question 1 was 'yes'... then why the need for assault rifles? If a shotgun will suffice for protection, why introduce assault rifles to your streets?

Both are effective weapons and legal to possess. People who like to possess number 2 may also like sport shooting. They don't have to provide answrs for possessing something that is legal. They are not the ones on trial. They are not the criminals.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

DS1119 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Every person that legally posses' a gun RIGHT NOW for the purpose of protecting themselves, is in fact protecting themselves. No different than a woman who carries mace in her purse. Even if she nevers uses it, was it still protecting her?

Well then DS... don't pay it lip service.

If these guns are for protection... then people should be walking to the mall with their bushmasters draped over their shoulder. People should be going to the movies in Aurora with their AKs sitting on their lap. Go all in with the assault rifles and handguns and let them serve the purpose you flaunt.

The instances we hear of people defending themselves with their assault rifles are far and few between- if at all. The instances we hear of people using these types of weapons to inflict damage on a large and rapid scale are numerous as we know.

Please answer the following question (and question 2 if applicable):

1. Would a double barrel 12 gauge shotgun not be an effective deterrent to someone trying to break into your house?

2. If the answer to question 1 was 'yes'... then why the need for assault rifles? If a shotgun will suffice for protection, why introduce assault rifles to your streets?

Both are effective weapons and legal to possess. People who like to possess number 2 may also like sport shooting. They don't have to provide answrs for possessing something that is legal. They are not the ones on trial. They are not the criminals.

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. Everybody understands that both are currently legal; however, what many people are suggesting is that perhaps both shouldn't be.

People are suggesting that people can safely protect themselves with a shotgun or hunting rifle- although in the event of a home invasion... a shotgun would likely be a homeowner's most effective rifle (even greater than an assault rifle with it's stopping power and accuracy from short distances such as at your front door).

As for sport shooting... well, sometimes trade-offs are necessary. Are shooting 'human targets' or 'beer cans' worth running the risk of another kindergarten class being shot up? To this end... gun legislation might even allow for you to keep such a weapon secured at a gun range, but not at your home. So... you want sport shooting... go to the range... get your gun from a secured locker... and fire away- just like golfers leave their golf clubs at their home courses!

What still gets lost in all of this is that people are trying to make the streets safer by removing an element that makes them dangerous. Why so resistant to such a cause?

pjl44

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

US alcohol impaired driving fatalities per 100,000= 3.3 (2010 figures)
Canada alcohol impaired driving fatalities per 100,000= 3.18 (2009 figure)

Sources:
http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-dri ... statistics
http://www.madd.ca/media/docs/MADD_Cana ... _FINAL.pdf

Our countries compare with regards to the fatalities that occur as a result of drunk driving. A problem for both of us.

Our countries both have mental illness, violent video games, and criminals. We are very, very similar.

The US boasts a homicide by gunfire rate that is over 6 times as high as Canada though.

What variable accounts for this discrepancy?

A long and entrenched history of gun ownership. There is no law that will erase the vast discrepancy in the volume of firearms owned. Rather than hitching our wagon to the impossible wish of turning aspects of a 200-year-old culture 180 degrees around, why not a more nuanced approach that targets WHY these mass murders occur versus WITH WHAT? Attempting to treat a symptom may seem like less work, but ultimately you're not touching the disease.

pjl44

dimitrispearljam wrote:

same as drugs...
but drugs and alchohol wasn't create for kill..
guns used to kill..protect you by killing the bad guy first..

You can't un-invent something, so what does intent matter? If I knew one of my friends were going to "use" heroin, methamphetamine, or a handgun for the first time this year, I would choose the latter every single time.

pjl44

brianlux wrote:

The first sentence of the first link reads: "There are approximately 80,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States." This would indicate a form of suicide. So are you saying more people kill themselves with alcohol than they do with self inflicted gunshot wounds? What about leaping from tall buildings and bridges? I think we need to outlaw tall buildings and bridges.

The families and friends of the 3,000 people who die annually as a result of drunk drivers would take issue with your suicide assertion.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811606.pdf

DS1119

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. Everybody understands that both are currently legal; however, what many people are suggesting is that perhaps both shouldn't be.

People are suggesting that people can safely protect themselves with a shotgun or hunting rifle- although in the event of a home invasion... a shotgun would likely be a homeowner's most effective rifle (even greater than an assault rifle with it's stopping power and accuracy from short distances such as at your front door).

As for sport shooting... well, sometimes trade-offs are necessary. Are shooting 'human targets' or 'beer cans' worth running the risk of another kindergarten class being shot up? To this end... gun legislation might even allow for you to keep such a weapon secured at a gun range, but not at your home. So... you want sport shooting... go to the range... get your gun from a secured locker... and fire away- just like golfers leave their golf clubs at their home courses!

What still gets lost in all of this is that people are trying to make the streets safer by removing an element that makes them dangerous. Why so resistant to such a cause?

For the millions and millions of legal gun owners who choose to protect their families and use their gun recreationally they would make the trade off all day and everyday. They would encourage society to target the criminals and not the innocent. And as far as leaving your rifles at a gun range? :? Defeats the whole purpose as having it as protection. It now puts your firearm in the hands of someone else to protect. :?

DS1119

4400 for one holiday in only one state. Wow.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... ck_check=1

DS1119

Unfortunately stories like these will never make national attention. They need to be searched out.


http://www.azfamily.com/news/Phoenix-ho ... 38952.html

Thirty Bills Unpaid

DS1119 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. Everybody understands that both are currently legal; however, what many people are suggesting is that perhaps both shouldn't be.

People are suggesting that people can safely protect themselves with a shotgun or hunting rifle- although in the event of a home invasion... a shotgun would likely be a homeowner's most effective rifle (even greater than an assault rifle with it's stopping power and accuracy from short distances such as at your front door).

As for sport shooting... well, sometimes trade-offs are necessary. Are shooting 'human targets' or 'beer cans' worth running the risk of another kindergarten class being shot up? To this end... gun legislation might even allow for you to keep such a weapon secured at a gun range, but not at your home. So... you want sport shooting... go to the range... get your gun from a secured locker... and fire away- just like golfers leave their golf clubs at their home courses!

What still gets lost in all of this is that people are trying to make the streets safer by removing an element that makes them dangerous. Why so resistant to such a cause?

For the millions and millions of legal gun owners who choose to protect their families and use their gun recreationally they would make the trade off all day and everyday. They would encourage society to target the criminals and not the innocent. And as far as leaving your rifles at a gun range? :? Defeats the whole purpose as having it as protection. It now puts your firearm in the hands of someone else to protect. :?

You're just not getting it, man.

You agree that a shotgun would suffice for protection, but then continue to argue for 'choice': even though that 'choice' has proven to have disastrous results for your country.

I only said... in yet another attempt to compromise... that you could take your M-16s and AK-47s to the range to be stored and used there if it was the only way you can get an erection. Your shotgun could be shined up nightly in your home for the weekly home invasions.

The US is held hostage by those that will refuse to let it advance. That's the problem with a democracy- it's not perfect: everybody, regarding of intelligence, gets to cast their vote and be heard.

DS1119

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. Everybody understands that both are currently legal; however, what many people are suggesting is that perhaps both shouldn't be.

People are suggesting that people can safely protect themselves with a shotgun or hunting rifle- although in the event of a home invasion... a shotgun would likely be a homeowner's most effective rifle (even greater than an assault rifle with it's stopping power and accuracy from short distances such as at your front door).

As for sport shooting... well, sometimes trade-offs are necessary. Are shooting 'human targets' or 'beer cans' worth running the risk of another kindergarten class being shot up? To this end... gun legislation might even allow for you to keep such a weapon secured at a gun range, but not at your home. So... you want sport shooting... go to the range... get your gun from a secured locker... and fire away- just like golfers leave their golf clubs at their home courses!

What still gets lost in all of this is that people are trying to make the streets safer by removing an element that makes them dangerous. Why so resistant to such a cause?

For the millions and millions of legal gun owners who choose to protect their families and use their gun recreationally they would make the trade off all day and everyday. They would encourage society to target the criminals and not the innocent. And as far as leaving your rifles at a gun range? :? Defeats the whole purpose as having it as protection. It now puts your firearm in the hands of someone else to protect. :?

You're just not getting it, man.

You agree that a shotgun would suffice for protection, but then continue to argue for 'choice': even though that 'choice' has proven to have disastrous results for your country.

I only said... in yet another attempt to compromise... that you could take your M-16s and AK-47s to the range to be stored and used there if it was the only way you can get an erection. Your shotgun could be shined up nightly in your home for the weekly home invasions.

The US is held hostage by those that will refuse to let it advance. That's the problem with a democracy- it's not perfect: everybody, regarding of intelligence, gets to cast their vote and be heard.

You're right. Americans have a choice. First off if thinking it's the legally sold rifles in this country that's the problem is lunacy and cutting off that supply will keep them out of criminals hands...well that just makes me

As far as your shotgun versus a rifle for protections analogy....bring it back to anything else. Everone here could drive a Geo Metro for a car. It would suffice for transportation. And yet we sell cars that drive in excess of 200 mph. Why? Someone can't drive them anywhere but a closed course to reach their full potential.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

DS1119 wrote:

Everone here could drive a Geo Metro for a car. It would suffice for transportation. And yet we sell cars that drive in excess of 200 mph. Why? Someone can't drive them anywhere but a closed course to reach their full potential.

absolutely agree. I've stated this to people countless times. I don't get it. why do vehicles for the general public have that speed capability? they shouldn't. it just goes to prove the point that humans are too stupid and irresponsible to possess such power.

guns and death penalty included.

Abe Froman

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You're just not getting it, man.

You agree that a shotgun would suffice for protection, but then continue to argue for 'choice': even though that 'choice' has proven to have disastrous results for your country.

I only said... in yet another attempt to compromise... that you could take your M-16s and AK-47s to the range to be stored and used there if it was the only way you can get an erection. Your shotgun could be shined up nightly in your home for the weekly home invasions.

This might be the best post in all these gun threads. Why is this so hard for some to understand? And why some will not understand and compromise??