Alcohol deaths vs. gun deaths

81

mikepegg44 wrote:

maybe, let's ask the DEA how that line of thought it going? banning the products has worked swimmingly

or take a drive on teh south side of chicago.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

mikepegg44 wrote:

You may be right, but I would rather them start by limiting who can buy weapons first. More thorough checks and balances in that regard would be more successful than an out right assault weapon ban.
our first inclination shouldn't be to take away from the vast majority because the slim minority can't use something responsibly.

any start would be a productive one.

mikepegg44

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

You may be right, but I would rather them start by limiting who can buy weapons first. More thorough checks and balances in that regard would be more successful than an out right assault weapon ban.
our first inclination shouldn't be to take away from the vast majority because the slim minority can't use something responsibly.

any start would be a productive one.

agreed.

dimitrispearljam

81 wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

it makes more sense to look at it from all angles. not just one. more guns = easier access to guns for people who shouldn't have them. too many guns is PART of the problem.

yep,,need a weapon to do the crime...seems more easy to control that,than people

clearly fire should be banned

its Molotov bombs that create that fire..there are banned in my country ...from my country this foto is taken

catefrances

mikepegg44 wrote:

They weren't just worried about the Brits. Our founding fathers were rather bright men who weren't so short-sided as to include something that would only be applicable to one country trying to return to control of the US.

It doesn't say that the only reason to keep and bear arms is a well regulated militia, it says that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state. and because of that fact, the right to keep and bear arms is necessary.

You may trust the government of today, you may also think it would be pointless to fight our military when and if that is necessary, some others don't. And those others, the ones that are stock piling weapons due to the 2nd amendment and the threat, however unlikely, of a tyrannical gov't aren't really the ones you have to worry about getting assault rifles. They work with heavier weaponry when they try to provoke...meaning they blow shit up. When we focus on the tools and not on the people we will lose sight of what will really help. Does anyone think that gun ownership is what separates our murder rates from other countries? is that the only factor?

Clear and present danger test. That is what should limit the ownership of weapons. What poses the more clear and present danger, a person with murder on the brain, or an inanimate object that may actually never get fired depending on who owns it?

The need angle that people take is rather spurious to the discussion. Needs and wants are so often misunderstood it isn't worth trying to figure out what someone else needs and wants. And for that matter, figuring out what a militia would fight today isn't worth trying to wrap our heads around either, you either believe they are necessary or you don't.

Needs and wants...it seems this whole world is decided on what someone else believes should be your own needs and wants.

youre right, they werent just worried about the brits... that was me simplifying things. and thank you for answering a question i (and others) have asked many times.

at the moment im reading an interesting trilogy by john birmingham about what would happen if america disappeared. by that i mean the entire population of the lower 48(except a small corner of washington state around seattle) being vapourised. the action begins in march 2003 on the eve of the invasion of iraq. a large swatheof canada and most of mexico as well as a whole lot of cuba is 'disappeared' as well. there are free booters and pirates everywhere and out of the chaos of rebuilding the country(including the entire executive branch) repatriating those americans who were overseas at the time of 'disappearance' back to their country is the question of security. one of the things that is somewhat saving the new united states of america is their military and their willing ness to pull no punches. what has this got to do with the gun issue? maybe nothing considering their are maybe 2 million people left in the US and tbh the issue of gun ownership hasnt come up cause theyve got more important things to worry about... but i figured if ever you need a well regulated militia, defending your country after losing almost your entire population would be one of them.
i also have to say the most interesting thing ive read so far in these books is when someone said america is an idea. and i think thats right. its an idea that can be defended even if the physical nature of your country is shaky or practically non existant.. its everything the US stands for.

fortyshades

bootlegger10 wrote:

fortyshades wrote:

chadwick wrote:

sure guns are made to kill. people have this thing called addiction they get hooked on shit easily, some easier than others. it is a proven fact alcohol kills more people than guns.

people wanna drink & drive. this = good chance of killing folks & many do just that daily.

from my personal life long experience... alcohol kills more people in my family than guns & we have both, guns & booze. however, currently i have neither whiskey nor a gun.

No disagreement here. But that still doens't take the fact away that guns were made to kill. You can also die from prescription drugs. All these comparisons say nothing about the reality that someone with some serious issues can walk into a classroom and start shooting sixty rounds to innocent children. That what this is about. People die of various reasons. Most often accidental. But the aim of guns is to kill...

Let's ignore guns for this post. Pretend they have been banned long ago.

Presription drugs make people get better from a sickness. They have purpose. What is alcohol's purpose, and what would society be like without it (besides having hundreds of more thousands alive)?

So far you have not explained why we should have alcohol legal when it does not serve a legitimate purpose, but yet kills hundreds of thousands of people. People on here think it is a ludicrous comparison, but lets just look at alcohol only and the positives and negatives. Do the positives of alcohol justify the negatives?

This is a legitimate question. I am not a fringe Republican that hunts every weekend or thinks Obama was born in Kenya. I don't own a gun. I would be for assault weapons bans.

Just look at alcohol. It was not made to kill but look at the benefits and the negatives. Cars help people get to work, to see family, to respond to emergencies quickly. I think this benefit outweighs the loss of life in accidents. Does alcohol's beneifts outweigh the negative?

The difference is that I cannot walk into a classroom and kill twenty children with a bottle of liquior. Is alcohol bad? Certainly. Mostly however for the one who consumes it. Most accidents (car accidents aside, but alcohol poisoning or alcoholism) are self inflicting. Besides all that, recent studies have shown that alcohol does have a social importance: stress relief. You could argue that to some guns have the same value. But you don't need a semi-automatic for that.

Behind all the smokes and mirrors and idiotic comparisons, let's not forget what sparked this debate; that twenty children died because someone used a semi automatic riffle. Which he obtained from his mother, who had it legally in her house - for she was a doomsday-prepper. Forget the comparisons and get back to the core.

dimitrispearljam

fortyshades wrote:

Behind all the smokes and mirrors and idiotic comparisons, let's not forget what sparked this debate; that twenty children died because someone used a semi automatic riffle. Which he obtained from his mother, who had it legally in her house - for she was a doomsday-prepper. Forget the comparisons and get back to the core.

this says it all

chadwick

actually i think if im not mistaken the assualt rifle was in the trunk of his car. he used handguns in the newtown school shootings.

catefrances

mikepegg44 wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

it makes more sense to look at it from all angles. not just one. more guns = easier access to guns for people who shouldn't have them. too many guns is PART of the problem.

yep,,need a weapon to do the crime...seems more easy to control that,than people

maybe, let's ask the DEA how that line of thought it going? banning the products has worked swimmingly

youre comparing drugs with firearms???

Thirty Bills Unpaid

chadwick wrote:

actually i think if im not mistaken the assualt rifle was in the trunk of his car. he used handguns in the newtown school shootings.

I'm pretty sure that, despite the media blurb that conveyed this, the assault rifle was the main weapon used in the massacre.

The media did a horrific job initially detailing events (remember they broadcast that Lanza's mother was a teacher at the school?).

STAYSEA

bootlegger10 wrote:

Alcohol related deaths - 80,000 per year
Gun Deaths in 2011 - 31,940

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_deaths_are_in_the_US_every_year

We should try to limit deaths from both, but I would like to understand how gun owners are ridiculed for owning guns and are called stupid, but it is perfectly fine to go the store and buy beer that kills more than 2x the amount of people that guns do a year. The figures do not even account for all of the domestic abuse related to alcohol that don't result in death.

So my question is, for those that are for banning guns, why aren't you for banning alcohol? Like I said in another post, a gun owner can at least say they are trying to protect their families and want to keep the guns. An alcohol drinker's only excuse for not banning alcohol is because they want to get a buzz (sounds pretty selfish).






It's a never ending joke. "Why do bars have parking lots?" "Why do criminals and movie heroes get the Kewl Guns?" Don't think too hard... It can keep u awake.

Went to a friends house last week, and they were watching "Cops". I told them I had already seen the episode.
Some one was beaten, busted, shot or stabbed and alcohol was likely involved... while they were driving

mikepegg44

catefrances wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

yep,,need a weapon to do the crime...seems more easy to control that,than people

maybe, let's ask the DEA how that line of thought it going? banning the products has worked swimmingly

youre comparing drugs with firearms???

I am comparing the outlawing of a product as the simpler solution. Drugs are outlawed and it has done nothing to stop the free flow of them throughout the country. If you don't treat the real problem, taking away the products used won't do dick.
While it may appear easier to control the products rather than tackle the people problem, the drug war, and the thousands who overdose every year (more than are killed by assault weapons by a very long mile), seem to prove otherwise.

Let's focus on who can get guns, rather than the guns. Might be harder but will ultimately be more successful.

JonnyPistachio

mikepegg44 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

maybe, let's ask the DEA how that line of thought it going? banning the products has worked swimmingly

youre comparing drugs with firearms???

I am comparing the outlawing of a product as the simpler solution. Drugs are outlawed and it has done nothing to stop the free flow of them throughout the country. If you don't treat the real problem, taking away the products used won't do dick.
While it may appear easier to control the products rather than tackle the people problem, the drug war, and the thousands who overdose every year (more than are killed by assault weapons by a very long mile), seem to prove otherwise.

Let's focus on who can get guns, rather than the guns. Might be harder but will ultimately be more successful.

I dont usually like the comparison of the drug war to gun restrictions because people's wants/needs/desires for these things are completely different. Drugs can be addictive and those folks are desperate. Also, the ability to market a $2 crack rock to a stuttering, shaking junky behind a dumpster is a bit easier than selling an illegal 9mm. But I do see some similarities in how each is brought into the country.

mikepegg44

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I dont usually like the comparison of the drug war to gun restrictions because people's wants/needs/desires for these things are completely different. Drugs can be addictive and those folks are desperate. Also, the ability to market a $2 crack rock to a stuttering, shaking junky behind a dumpster is a bit easier than selling an illegal 9mm. But I do see some similarities in how each is brought into the country.

It certainly isn't a perfect comparison, but my main point wasn't that drugs and guns are the same, but that banning an object doesn't always give us the affect we want...I have the firm belief that drugs are more unsafe now than they would be if they were legal...because if they were legal resources could be put toward proper use and treatment rather than resources put to incarcerating and stigmatizing drug users.
For me it is the same with guns...we don't demonize the shooters nearly as much as we demonize the tools they used...and while it may not be a conscious decision to do it still gets us away from blaming the human side of it and thus trying to understand and possible control what makes people do these things rather than again taking away from the vast majority because of the small minority...

As I discuss all of this on here and with friends I have certainly become much more open to the idea of better regulation on who can own guns and the liability of those gun owners when a crime is committed with their weapon regardless if they were involved or not. But I have VERY little faith in the idea that banning weapons will do anything but save asses in government when the next one comes up and we realize that gun bans aren't the answer to why this will continue to happen.

JonnyPistachio

mikepegg44 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I dont usually like the comparison of the drug war to gun restrictions because people's wants/needs/desires for these things are completely different. Drugs can be addictive and those folks are desperate. Also, the ability to market a $2 crack rock to a stuttering, shaking junky behind a dumpster is a bit easier than selling an illegal 9mm. But I do see some similarities in how each is brought into the country.

It certainly isn't a perfect comparison, but my main point wasn't that drugs and guns are the same, but that banning an object doesn't always give us the affect we want...I have the firm belief that drugs are more unsafe now than they would be if they were legal...because if they were legal resources could be put toward proper use and treatment rather than resources put to incarcerating and stigmatizing drug users.
For me it is the same with guns...we don't demonize the shooters nearly as much as we demonize the tools they used...and while it may not be a conscious decision to do it still gets us away from blaming the human side of it and thus trying to understand and possible control what makes people do these things rather than again taking away from the vast majority because of the small minority...

As I discuss all of this on here and with friends I have certainly become much more open to the idea of better regulation on who can own guns and the liability of those gun owners when a crime is committed with their weapon regardless if they were involved or not. But I have VERY little faith in the idea that banning weapons will do anything but save asses in government when the next one comes up and we realize that gun bans aren't the answer to why this will continue to happen.

I understand what you're saying...and since I disagree with a full gun ban, I just thought we were talking about the fact that both drugs and guns are very prevalent in our society, and the war on drugs is an ugly one and that's a gauge for how poorly a war on guns would be. But I guess we're not asking for a war on guns, just better regulations. Shit, I mostly agree with you on legalizing drugs..

Flutter Girl

catefrances wrote:

Flutter Girl wrote:

They also included it because of what the British Government was doing to their own people. Witch hunts, etc..They came from that, it's why many boarded the ships to the new world, to get away from the worst of it..It's not the only thing they included in the Constitution, because of how the British Government treated their own people, either..

And they couldn't imagine it, really? Um..DaVinci dreamed up the helocopter and robot surgery and machine type weapons with heavy caliber..yes, I think the old men back in the day had enough intelligence to dream up such a weapon. DaVinci did..why not other brilliant forward-thinking inventors of the time?

seriously really?? witches??? thats your defence??? oh my. :roll:

Really? You really don't know that the vast majority of witch hunts had nothing to do with believing they were actually hunting a 'witch.' It was the Government hunting down anyone who dissented.

Flutter Girl

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

you think the answer is simple? and you are applauding a post that completely ignored the point? it just boggles my mind that you folks can't agree it's a multi-faceted issue. I didn't concentrate my argument on the mentally ill. this thread isn't just about the mass shootings. It's about all deaths from guns.

the american problem is not just about poverty. calling it a singular issue is naive and just closes your eyes because of your selfish wants and paranoia. there's poverty and gun ownership all over the world. but you just don't see the kind of gun violence you see in the US.

FACT.

You cannot dispute that.

NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT NUMBER OF GUNS.

NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF.

can you people stop focusing on that since no one here is arguing with you on that? just the caliber of guns and the culture of gun violence.

Um..I never said it was a singular issue. I'm saying it's hypocritical and ridiculous to go after the group responsible for so little, while saying nothing about the group responsible for most..If these people really were hurt by the death of innocents, if they really cared about preventing more loss of innocent life, they would be addressing the bigger picture...not just a fluke.

And I can easily dispute your statement. For one, you didn't post anything to back your claim that we have the worst rates. And 2, there are quite a few other countries with worse rates than us for any number of reasons. Our neighbors to the south, for example.