Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
KCitons

USA DUI Deaths (and how they relate to other things)

Recommended Posts

What I am looking for is a chart/graph of alcohol use by % year by year and a chart of numbers of gun deaths/violence.  Is there correlation there?  

Also, since most of the focus in the other thread is on mass shootings, I am curious what % of those has involved alcohol.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Who is pretending this? 

The answer was in my post. 

9 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

So now I am supposed to be up in arms if somebody's drinking gives them liver disease?

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Who is pretending this? 

That strawman he keeps building. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

That strawman he keeps building. 

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

What I am looking for is a chart/graph of alcohol use by % year by year and a chart of numbers of gun deaths/violence.  Is there correlation there?  

Also, since most of the focus in the other thread is on mass shootings, I am curious what % of those has involved alcohol.  

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

Quote

Alcohol-related crime statistics reveal a close, intimate connection between alcohol and violence. On average, in any given year:

86 percent of homicides will be committed by individuals under the influence.

40 percent of child abuse incidents will be connected to alcohol use or abuse, and 70 percent of these abusive individuals (parents or guardians) will suffer from a substance use disorder.

37 percent of rapes and sexual assaults will involve offenders under the influence, and that number jumps to 90 percent when the abuses occur on college campuses.

15 percent of robberies, 27 percent of aggravated assaults and 25 percent of simple assaults will be carried out by individuals who’ve been drinking and are likely under the influence. This amounts to more than 2.5 million incidents of alcohol-related violence.

65 percent of intimate partner violence incidents will be carried out by perpetrators who’ve been drinking. This equates to more than 450,000 such incidents annually.

20 percent of intimate partner violence incidents involving alcohol will include the use of a gun, knife, or other potentially lethal weapons.

95 percent of violent crimes committed on college campuses will involve alcohol, and the total number of such assaults will be greater than 600,000.

118,000 incidents of family violence (spouses and partners excluded) will be linked to excessive drinking, as will 744,000 incidents of violence that involve acquaintances.

Nearly 60 percent of violent crime victims will end up with injuries, with men being twice as likely to sustain major injuries as women.

Overall, about 40 percent of all violent crimes will be alcohol-related.

The association between alcohol and rape, domestic violence, homicide and violence of all types isn’t just limited to the perpetrators. Victims of these crimes are often under the influence of alcohol at the time of their victimization, their intoxication making them more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

Not all violent crimes need an attacker and a victim. People suffering from severe depression, and who have participated in binge drinking, have a higher likelihood of experiencing suicidal thoughts and are more prone to harming themselves than people who abstain when they are depressed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, KCitons said:

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?

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KCitons said:

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

 

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.  :shrug:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

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.  

You're right. From a mental health standpoint, one is a quick death. The other is long, slow death, drawn out over a lifetime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

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.  :shrug:

 

And I don't think there are many people who are against tightening some of the regulations on booze. 

Now where does that leave us?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KCitons said:

And I don't think there are many people who are against tightening some of the regulations on booze. 

Now where does that leave us?

 

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

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.  

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, KCitons said:

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. 

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?   

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

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?   

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

If 80% of DUI deaths were caused by people driving a Ford Mustang it would be outlawed immediately. 

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? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2019 at 12:33 PM, KCitons said:

I'm not for an all out ban of alcohol (or guns) either. But, it seems that there are more people that would be happy with a ban of guns.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

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.

Expand on the bolded?

How do you explain the number of alcohol related deaths? Is that reconciliation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KCitons said:

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? 

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, KCitons said:

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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

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. 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Expand on the bolded?

How do you explain the number of alcohol related deaths? Is that reconciliation?

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.

Edited by FreeBaGeL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, KCitons said:

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? 

 

Correlation does not equal causation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

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.

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!!!

Edited by FreeBaGeL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KCitons said:

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. 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FreeBaGeL said:

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 level, is immediately colored/dismissed as an evil person wanting to steal all of their precious guns.

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

Correlation does not equal causation.

Neither does owning a gun. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, KCitons said:

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? 

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.

Edited by FreeBaGeL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apple Jack said:

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

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?

Are you suggesting that it's not easier to shoot more people with a gun that fires more bullets more quickly?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

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.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apple Jack said:

Are you suggesting that it's not easier to shoot more people with a gun that fires more bullets more quickly?

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

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?

Then that should be illegal too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, KCitons said:

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. 

 

That's not the strawman you are building. The bolded below is. 

12 hours ago, KCitons said:

Yep. I'm just pretending. 

The same way the anti-gun group is pretending that 2/3rds of the gun deaths are a violent act between two people. 

As Karma put it very well:

12 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Who is pretending this? 

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

Then that should be illegal too.

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Politician Spock said:

 

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. 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KCitons said:

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. 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

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. 

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

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. 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KCitons said:

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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

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.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Politician Spock said:

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FreeBaGeL said:

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.

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

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.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, KCitons said:

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?

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.

Edited by FreeBaGeL
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

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. 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FreeBaGeL said:

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.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.