KCitons
Footballguy
The answer was in my post.
No, you're not.
But, you shouldn't care about those that want to commit suicide with a gun either. Why do you care about one, but not the other?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
USA DUI Deaths (and how they relate to other things) (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter KCitons
- Start date
But, you shouldn't care about those that want to commit suicide with a gun either. Why do you care about one, but not the other?
Politician Spock
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
It's not a strawman. Remove deaths by suicide from your gun deaths stats and it shows that the odds (and therefore the fear) are much lower for being a victim of gun violence.
But without the fear, you can't move the agenda forward.
KCitons
Footballguy
Good Luck.
I'm not seeing the anything like this. Maybe USA Today has some charts.
What I do see is a lot of the same data repeated in different articles. I would like to know what sources they used.
Alcohol Related Crimes
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Ah, the "anti-gun group". I was wondering who specifically around these parts.
I care about all people and both groups. I don't see them as the same situation for starters. Sure, in the very basic terms, it's somebody making choices with their body that don't effect me most of the time. However, as others have talked about in the other thread, suicide often isn't something that is fully planned out and survivors often don't try again and are glad for a second chance. That's why it's talked about in the gun debate since it's such a lethal and effective method once people make that decision.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Cool. "under the influence" is a very general term that they don't bother to define for some reason.
Again, I don't think there are many people who are against tightening some regulations on booze.
KCitons
Footballguy
You're right. From a mental health standpoint, one is a quick death. The other is long, slow death, drawn out over a lifetime.
KCitons
Footballguy
And I don't think there are many people who are against tightening some of the regulations on booze.Cool. "under the influence" is a very general term that they don't bother to define for some reason.
Again, I don't think there are many people who are against tightening some regulations on booze.
Now where does that leave us?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I feel like we read two different threads. It was said over an over that this thread wasn't getting traction because most people would be on board with tightening these things, especially on the DUI side.
KCitons
Footballguy
There is no action. There are no marches on Washington. There will be no discussion about the lives lost to alcohol in the upcoming election.
That is the difference.
The motivation for gun control is the number of gun deaths. Specifically mass shootings. When you look at the number of alcohol deaths, it's double. Take into account gun deaths that overlap with alcohol use, and it seems obvious to me the negative effects that alcohol have on our society. Guns are one dimensional. Their sole purpose is to kill. (I was forced to agree to this). What is the sole purpose of alcohol? Not only can alcohol kill, but it can have multiple other damaging effects without killing.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Is that really surprising? In one of my posts didn't it say something like 70% of America drinks alcohol? Plus there are health benefits with drinking moderately. No, you probably aren't going to see marches for something that a vast majority of the country partakes in, it's just the way it is.
I am not going to say that it's not an issue either. But like I have been posting in here - how high is that correlation exactly, and what causes the other? Is alcohol a driver in these cases or something that brings out underlying tendencies for certain people?
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
If 80% of DUI deaths were caused by people driving a Ford Mustang it would be outlawed immediately.
KCitons
Footballguy
Are you saying if everyone owned guns, then we wouldn't be talking about gun regulations?
I've posted stats on alcohol being a factor. How much, I don't know if those stats are available.
KCitons
Footballguy
100% of DUI deaths are caused by alcohol.
100% of gun deaths are caused by guns.
100% of alcohol related deaths have a factor of alcohol.
There are more alcohol related deaths in this country than gun deaths. Which one gets more coverage by media? Which one will be a key talking point in the upcoming elections?
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
There are a metric ####-ton of people that would prefer an outright ban of alcohol. You just don't hear about it as much because somehow people that enjoy drinking are able to reconcile that while still allowing general regulation of alcohol.
KCitons
Footballguy
Expand on the bolded?
How do you explain the number of alcohol related deaths? Is that reconciliation?
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
I would say mass shootings with semi automatic machine guns get the most coverage. They should be outlawed, period. Very few people want a gun ban and it's a silly argument that it's a slippery slope outlawing these weapons of war. I can't possess a surface to air missile or nuclear missile for that matter. Yet millions of people own millions of rifles and pistols.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
That's because everyone is on the same page with alcohol. Everyone pretty much agrees that alcohol is dangerous and needs to be regulated. There won't be any candidates in the upcoming election drumming up a crowd with the idea that we need to avoid any alcohol regulation because it's just a slippery slope to the government taking away all our booze. There won't be any candidates trying to tell us that the best way to combat dangerous people with alcohol is to equip more people with alcohol.
If everyone were similarly reasonable about guns and so many candidates weren't dependent on funding that requires them to maintain the facade that guns are NBD and should remain untouched, and that the other side just wants to take them away from you so they can oppress you, then the minority that wants guns outright banned would be as little an unheard whimper as the ones that want alcohol outright banned.
KCitons
Footballguy
I will let the bolded pass, as it's not the correct nomenclature. But, that's an argument for the another day.
Let's say there is a ban on assault weapons. Knowing there are 40k gun deaths per year. What are you expecting to see as a decrease in the number of gun deaths?
If you're looking at decreasing the number of mass shootings. You won't be able to. Mass shootings are an incident born out of mental health issues. I don't expect people's desire to commit these shootings will change just because a certain weapon is banned. It may alter the number of people killed. But, that's based more on shootings like the one in Vegas. We've seen plenty of mass shootings where there was no assault weapon used, and a lot of people died.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
You misread. I am saying people that drink are able to reconcile the notion that some people want alcohol outright banned without taking the hardline stance that alcohol should remain untouched and people should just deal with it. We can be reasonable and say yeah, alcohol does cause a lot of damage, let's see what we can do to limit that.
But for many the gun issue comes down to THESE MF'ERS WANT TO TAKE ERRR GUNZ AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PRY THEM OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS even though most people don't want to take our guns. A conversation can't even get started because any regulation, even at the most obvious and reasonable level, is immediately colored/dismissed as an evil person wanting to steal all of their precious guns.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple Jack
Footballguy
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
To expand on this, here is a commercial that aired here like every 10 minutes during the last election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPM8e_DauUw
Someone show me where Hillary Clinton ever said she wanted to remove the ability for a law abiding citizen to keep a handgun safely stored in a safe in their own home? Yet that is exactly the picture that was painted. OMG she wants to close the Charleston loophole, SHE WANTS TO TAKE UR GUNZ AND LET PEOPLE RAPE YOU!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Not may, will. And just because "a lot" of people died doesn't mean that a lot more wouldn't have with an assault weapon. The tone-deafness here is staggering.
KCitons
Footballguy
I would argue that the stats prove otherwise. It's not just up to the people that drink to fix the issues of alcohol. Lawn darts is a simple example. It wasn't the lawn dart professionals that said, "hey, let's remove the sharp points on the darts to make them safer". I'd bet the people that changed those regulations never played lawn darts.
How many of those drinkers break the law on an regular basis by drinking and driving. There are stats around that. Over a million people are arrested for driving while intoxicated. (not sure what percent are alcohol). Does that sound like they are fixing the problem? They are ignoring the law. Why?
KCitons
Footballguy
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
That's totally unrelated to the point. Obviously people are always going to break laws. That doesn't mean we should get rid of laws.
There are fewer alcohol deaths than there would be if alcohol was unregulated, probably by a lot. I was responding to your point about it being a non issue in elections. If an entire political party and people that enjoy alcohol were out there screaming that alcohol should be unregulated and any regulation of it was just a ruse to steal our god given right to booze then it would be a political issue. But there's not. If there's nothing to argue about, then it's not going to come up in elections.
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
Wrong.
Take a look at the most recent shootings.
Synagogue shooting - AR15 - 1 killed, 3 injured.
UNCC shooting - handgun - 2 killed, 4 injured.
How many died at Virginia Tech? What gun was used there?
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Are you suggesting that it's not easier to shoot more people with a gun that fires more bullets more quickly?
KCitons
Footballguy
Then what are you using to drive your reasons for gun regulation? Mass shootings? Overall number of gun deaths? Alcohol is worse and regulated even less.
KCitons
Footballguy
This shows your lack of gun knowledge.
An AR15 with a 30 round magazine? I can buy a magazine for my glock 9mm that holds 30 rounds. They are both semi automatic firearms. Which one fires more bullets more quickly?
KCitons
Footballguy
The other thing that people fail to take into account with an assault weapons ban, is that the shooters will have to resort to a handgun. Which is more concealable. Perhaps walking across a college campus trying to hide an AR15 would prove difficult. Doing so with a 9mm Glock wouldn't.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Politician Spock
Footballguy
That's not the strawman you are building. The bolded below is.
As Karma put it very well:
Anti-gun groups aren't even closing to insinuating that suicides are a violent act between two people. You reform their argument in to something ridiculous that you can easily knock down. What you are doing is a the very essence of strawman arguing.
KCitons
Footballguy
And now we start down the slippery slope.
When one ban doesn't stop the problem, then we must ban more and more. Sooner or later, we have to realize that guns are not the cause. People are the cause. This has been my argument for quite some time.
I've even made this argument in regards to DUI's. I posted a long time ago about the my FIL's 3rd offense DUI. They did nothing to help fix his underlying problem. They removed his license. Which doesn't fix the problem. And doesn't keep him from driving a vehicle.
KCitons
Footballguy
We solved this with the Suicide vs Abortion thread. People have a right to do as they wish with their body. If that means using a gun to end their life, it's not something we should use as a reason for gun regulation.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
I agree with this. And I've agreed with it when SC said it as well.
This is why I don't think banning certain weapons, like the AR 15, will really do much at all.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
They could use drugs for suicide too, but that doesn't mean we should remove regulations on prescription drugs so that people who want to commiit suicide with them can get them easily.
KCitons
Footballguy
Who said anything about removing regulations.
Prescription drugs are locked up behind the pharmacy. Handguns (and most guns) are locked up in a case or some type of physical security at gun stores. Alcohol is left on shelf out in the open. Anyone, any age can pick it up.
If you went to the grocery store and saw an assortment of handguns at the checkout counter you'd have a coronary.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Well first of all I disagree with the bolded. But then again I live in Utah where if we applied our alcohol laws to guns it would be the equivalent of telling people at shooting ranges they're not allowed to carry anything larger than a .22 and they can only ever have one bullet in the clip at a time.
As to the point as a whole, you seem to have this weird habit of making a point, then taking someone's response to that point and applying it to some other context.
We're talking about why alcohol is not an issue in elections when it is involved in so many deaths, but guns are. My point is that if half the political populace treated it the same way as guns, it would be.
Alcohol isn't a major sticking point in elections for the same reasons cars aren't. Yeah lots of people die from it, and we all agree we need to take measures to limit that. There are no political candidates saying that any attempt to regulate alcohol is a violation of our freedoms. The National Brewer's Association isn't telling people and funding candidates to imply that requiring people to be properly ID'd by federal standards at outdoor beerfests is really just an attempt to create a slippery slope where they can confiscate all of your alcohol. There is no car manufacturers coalition implying that having to register your car with the state leads to inane scenarios like this one where someone is running away from a rapist only to have their car disappear and tell us that Donald Trump wants to take away your car and your ability to escape a rapist.
If any of those seemingly insane things, which are commonplace in the gun debate, existed for alcohol or cars then they would be major election issues too. But everyone who enjoys alcohol and cars is reasonable. So here we are.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
One of the many reasons we regulate drugs is to reduce the number of people using them to commit suicide.
One of the many reasons we need to regulate guns is to reduce the number of people using them to commit suicide.
KCitons
Footballguy
This is such BS and only holds value if you believe that all gun owners are mass shooters.
The last line of this confirms this.
KCitons
Footballguy
Again, is that a valid reason. I understand protecting people from themselves. (that's why I made to comment about the suicide vs abortion thread).
I don't see suicide deaths as a valid reason for gun regulation. I see the need to protect people that don't want to die from gun violence as the reason for gun regulations.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Well I own a lot of guns and I certainly don't believe that I am a mass shooter, so I'm going to have to disagree with you there.
If you can't step back and read the paragraphs above that one objectively, then there is no point in having this discussion.
KCitons
Footballguy
You mean the point where you claim the 1 million DUI offenders each year (and the estimate 100 million that aren't caught) are the reasonable people?
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Yes, it is a valid reason.
Suicide prevention is a very necessary service government should be providing. Again, I don't think suicide should be illegal (and I don't see anyone moving for that), but yes the government should do what it can to prevent it as much as possible.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Where did I say that?
Let me try putting it more bluntly.
If law abiding drinking democrats and brewing associations took as much of a hardline stance against alcohol regulations and the people that propose them as law abiding gun owning republicans and the NRA take against gun regulations and the people that propose them, then alcohol would be an issue in the upcoming election. I don't understand how this is even an argument.
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
This is where we just agree to disagree. You say it's a valid reason. I say it doesn't.
You think the government should be providing assistance to prevent it. But, you don't think that the government should be providing assistance to prevent abortions.
We have a fundamental difference in our approach.
KCitons
Footballguy
You seem to be stuck on the roadblocks to gun regulation. If you think there are too many alcohol related deaths, then you should be more active in finding a solution. You think there are too many gun related deaths, so you've been active about finding a solution.
One could make the conclusion that you don't think there are too many alcohol related deaths.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
If you want to be anti-suicide prevention, that's your choice.
In fact, please do. Be really loud about it too.
Similar threads
