What's new
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) (2 Viewers)

Bumping this thread because I didn't want to post this in any of the other gun threads. I know how much my analogies make people angry. So, I will ask this question here.

We are seeing more and more mass shootings being prevented. There were 3 separate people arrested this weekend. Supposedly, all were plotting some type of deadly event. 

How is this any different than the things that police do to prevent drunk drivers? Things like check points prevent a dangerous situation from becoming deadly. They did it without banning alcohol. 

If we see more mass shootings prevented, are people still going to want gun bans? If so, why wouldn't you want alcohol bans? 

 
KCitons said:
Bumping this thread because I didn't want to post this in any of the other gun threads. I know how much my analogies make people angry. So, I will ask this question here.

We are seeing more and more mass shootings being prevented. There were 3 separate people arrested this weekend. Supposedly, all were plotting some type of deadly event. 

How is this any different than the things that police do to prevent drunk drivers? Things like check points prevent a dangerous situation from becoming deadly. They did it without banning alcohol. 

If we see more mass shootings prevented, are people still going to want gun bans? If so, why wouldn't you want alcohol bans? 
Click to expand...
Preventing mass shooting is great, especially if it can be done without banning any kind of guns.  Not sure what banning alcohol has to do with this though?  Once again, not all that comparable.

 
Hawkeye21 said:
Preventing mass shooting is great, especially if it can be done without banning any kind of guns.  Not sure what banning alcohol has to do with this though?  Once again, not all that comparable.
Click to expand...
The comparison was the point of my question. 

We don't feel the need to ban alcohol because we have a number of dui deaths that is either acceptable or in line with other countries. 

You just confirmed that we may not need to ban any guns. We've done very little from a proactive standpoint to educate on the dangers of guns, the way we do with alcohol, drugs, or even vaping. Vaping has been around for only  few years and the television is plastered with PSA's. Maybe if we had something that warned smaller kids not to touch a gun, if they find one, and to notify a grownup, we would have less accidental shootings. Maybe if we had more PSA's about the short window in which someone commits suicide would make a gun owner lock up their firearms. People say we are doing nothing in regards to gun regulation. But, really we haven't done some of the simplest things. I don't believe the NRA would stand in the way of PSA's that promote gun safety. What basis would they use to censor them?

 
KCitons said:
The comparison was the point of my question. 

We don't feel the need to ban alcohol because we have a number of dui deaths that is either acceptable or in line with other countries. 

You just confirmed that we may not need to ban any guns. We've done very little from a proactive standpoint to educate on the dangers of guns, the way we do with alcohol, drugs, or even vaping. Vaping has been around for only  few years and the television is plastered with PSA's. Maybe if we had something that warned smaller kids not to touch a gun, if they find one, and to notify a grownup, we would have less accidental shootings. Maybe if we had more PSA's about the short window in which someone commits suicide would make a gun owner lock up their firearms. People say we are doing nothing in regards to gun regulation. But, really we haven't done some of the simplest things. I don't believe the NRA would stand in the way of PSA's that promote gun safety. What basis would they use to censor them?
Click to expand...
The reason I say they are not comparable is because a gun is created to kill.  Alcohol occurs naturally and is meant to be consumed by individuals.  No one is going out and killing someone with alcohol.  Alcohol may be the reason for their actions but it is not what it is intended for.  No one is buying up a bunch of alcohol to go out and murder people.

The only relation the two have is that they can be involved in deaths.  If that's the only relation you're interested in then you might as well lump everything in the world that can be responsible for deaths.  This is why I don't think it's a very good comparison.

 
Hawkeye21 said:
The reason I say they are not comparable is because a gun is created to kill.  Alcohol occurs naturally and is meant to be consumed by individuals.  No one is going out and killing someone with alcohol.  Alcohol may be the reason for their actions but it is not what it is intended for.  No one is buying up a bunch of alcohol to go out and murder people.

The only relation the two have is that they can be involved in deaths.  If that's the only relation you're interested in then you might as well lump everything in the world that can be responsible for deaths.  This is why I don't think it's a very good comparison.
Click to expand...
We've discussed this a long time ago. What was the intent of lawn darts? We regulate or ban things because they are dangerous and cause the loss of human life. Why do I wear a seat belt? I'm not going to hurt anyone else if I get into a car accident? What about cigarettes? We allow people to continue to smoke, although not around other people, even though we know it will lead to health problems and possibly death. Is that their intent? 

The comparison is how/when the people of this country want the government to step in and fix things.

If alcohol occurs naturally, then we should ban the sale and distribution. We can consume only what occurs naturally. While we are at it, we can do the same with marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Those are all legal, correct?  You seem to want to ignore the long process between natural alcohol and that Bud Lite in your hand. 

I posted awhile back that all of the materials used to create a gun are found in nature as well. With the right process those materials can be turned into a gun. I can see the advertisements now. Remington, made of 100% local organic materials. 

 
KCitons said:
We've discussed this a long time ago. What was the intent of lawn darts? We regulate or ban things because they are dangerous and cause the loss of human life. Why do I wear a seat belt? I'm not going to hurt anyone else if I get into a car accident? What about cigarettes? We allow people to continue to smoke, although not around other people, even though we know it will lead to health problems and possibly death. Is that their intent? 

The comparison is how/when the people of this country want the government to step in and fix things.

If alcohol occurs naturally, then we should ban the sale and distribution. We can consume only what occurs naturally. While we are at it, we can do the same with marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Those are all legal, correct?  You seem to want to ignore the long process between natural alcohol and that Bud Lite in your hand. 

I posted awhile back that all of the materials used to create a gun are found in nature as well. With the right process those materials can be turned into a gun. I can see the advertisements now. Remington, made of 100% local organic materials. 
Click to expand...
This is why I think this argument is a waste of time.  It's the same thing over and over again yet you continue to bring it up.  Alcohol has plenty of regulations.  It is not legal for someone to make their own alcohol and distribute it.  There are many laws centered around alcohol and consumption.  Alcohol was even banned completely at one time and it was a failure.  History has shown that a lot has been done with alcohol sales and consumption and there are actions being made all the time to try and lower deaths related to it.

This argument is tiring.

 
Hawkeye21 said:
This is why I think this argument is a waste of time.  It's the same thing over and over again yet you continue to bring it up.  Alcohol has plenty of regulations.  It is not legal for someone to make their own alcohol and distribute it.  There are many laws centered around alcohol and consumption.  Alcohol was even banned completely at one time and it was a failure.  History has shown that a lot has been done with alcohol sales and consumption and there are actions being made all the time to try and lower deaths related to it.

This argument is tiring.
Click to expand...
Here we go. I've stated facts that dispute your intent argument. So, now you're going to revert to "this argument is a waste of time" or "this argument is tiring". You did nothing to prove anything I said was false. Just that you don't agree. 

We are regulating guns, the same way we are regulating alcohol. What would the equivalent of an assault weapons ban in regards to alcohol? Banning kegs or 30 packs? 

Guns and alcohol have age restrictions. Guns and alcohol are prohibited from certain buildings. You can't shoot a gun out of a moving car, the same way you can't drink a beer while driving down the road. (but you can carry both in a car from point A to point B). 

FYI, it is legal for people to make their own alcohol. And I guarantee that people are distributing it. My Dad made his own wine since the 1970's and gave bottles as gifts for Christmas. I will agree that you can't sell alcohol. (if that's what you mean by distribute). But, technically you can't sell lemonade without proper permits. So, it's less about the red tape than it is about the ability to do so. 

DUI deaths have stagnated over the last half a decade. 10k people die every year. When we remove suicides and gang violence from the overall number of gun deaths, that means less people die from gun deaths than from dui deaths. And that doesn't account for all other alcohol related deaths and the cost of alcohol on society. It's about agenda and political talking points and not about saving lives. 

 
KCitons said:
Here we go. I've stated facts that dispute your intent argument. So, now you're going to revert to "this argument is a waste of time" or "this argument is tiring". You did nothing to prove anything I said was false. Just that you don't agree. 

We are regulating guns, the same way we are regulating alcohol. What would the equivalent of an assault weapons ban in regards to alcohol? Banning kegs or 30 packs? 

Guns and alcohol have age restrictions. Guns and alcohol are prohibited from certain buildings. You can't shoot a gun out of a moving car, the same way you can't drink a beer while driving down the road. (but you can carry both in a car from point A to point B). 

FYI, it is legal for people to make their own alcohol. And I guarantee that people are distributing it. My Dad made his own wine since the 1970's and gave bottles as gifts for Christmas. I will agree that you can't sell alcohol. (if that's what you mean by distribute). But, technically you can't sell lemonade without proper permits. So, it's less about the red tape than it is about the ability to do so. 

DUI deaths have stagnated over the last half a decade. 10k people die every year. When we remove suicides and gang violence from the overall number of gun deaths, that means less people die from gun deaths than from dui deaths. And that doesn't account for all other alcohol related deaths and the cost of alcohol on society. It's about agenda and political talking points and not about saving lives. 
Click to expand...
Who said anything about it being illegal to make your own alcohol?  It is legal in all 50 states to brew your own beer but there are regulations on how much and certain regulations can vary by state.  It is not legal to distill your own alcohol, which is why it's illegal to make moonshine.  It's illegal to sell your homemade brew.  In some states it's illegal for it to leave your house which means you can not distribute it to others.

I've stated numerous times why I think guns and alcohol are a bad comparison and that's why I said it's tiring.  I'm tired of repeating it and you don't think I'm providing you with good enough info so what's the point?

 
Hawkeye21 said:
Who said anything about it being illegal to make your own alcohol?  It is legal in all 50 states to brew your own beer but there are regulations on how much and certain regulations can vary by state.  It is not legal to distill your own alcohol, which is why it's illegal to make moonshine.  It's illegal to sell your homemade brew.  In some states it's illegal for it to leave your house which means you can not distribute it to others.

I've stated numerous times why I think guns and alcohol are a bad comparison and that's why I said it's tiring.  I'm tired of repeating it and you don't think I'm providing you with good enough info so what's the point?
Click to expand...


Hawkeye21 said:
This is why I think this argument is a waste of time.  It's the same thing over and over again yet you continue to bring it up.  Alcohol has plenty of regulations.  It is not legal for someone to make their own alcohol and distribute it.  There are many laws centered around alcohol and consumption.  Alcohol was even banned completely at one time and it was a failure.  History has shown that a lot has been done with alcohol sales and consumption and there are actions being made all the time to try and lower deaths related to it.

This argument is tiring.
Click to expand...
How do you prevent someone form distributing it? I think you are confusing distribution and sales. You can't stop distribution, you can only build laws to punish it. When it comes to sales, they are not stopping that either. They just want to guarantee the government gets it's cut.  The government gets a cut from gun sales already. 

There are many laws centered around guns and use as well. Let's do a comparison. It's 2am, I am driving home drunk from a bar. I pass through a school zone where I am pulled over by police. I blow a .12.  Will I legally be able to drive after my punishment is served? Will I be able to buy booze the moment I walk out of jail? Scenario two, I am in a school zone at 2am and fire a handgun. I am caught by police. Will I legally be able to own another handgun?

What is the penalty for causing an accident while driving drunk? What is the penalty for shooting someone, but they don't die. 

You don't want to admit that we have gun laws. And in many cases, those laws are much stricter that things like alcohol. 

I suspect your next comments will be that this conversation isn't worth discussing and you will tell me to have a good day. Meanwhile, you've done nothing to prove your point. Or disprove facts that I've presented. 

 
KCitons said:
How do you prevent someone form distributing it? I think you are confusing distribution and sales. You can't stop distribution, you can only build laws to punish it. When it comes to sales, they are not stopping that either. They just want to guarantee the government gets it's cut.  The government gets a cut from gun sales already. 

There are many laws centered around guns and use as well. Let's do a comparison. It's 2am, I am driving home drunk from a bar. I pass through a school zone where I am pulled over by police. I blow a .12.  Will I legally be able to drive after my punishment is served? Will I be able to buy booze the moment I walk out of jail? Scenario two, I am in a school zone at 2am and fire a handgun. I am caught by police. Will I legally be able to own another handgun?

What is the penalty for causing an accident while driving drunk? What is the penalty for shooting someone, but they don't die. 

You don't want to admit that we have gun laws. And in many cases, those laws are much stricter that things like alcohol. 

I suspect your next comments will be that this conversation isn't worth discussing and you will tell me to have a good day. Meanwhile, you've done nothing to prove your point. Or disprove facts that I've presented. 
Click to expand...
Making it and then distributing it is what I meant.  I know it's legal to make your own beer, it's not legal to distill liquor though.  As for distribution, it depends on the state like I said before.  Just because they are laws and regulations does not mean they crack down on them hard.  I don't really see how they are harming anything anyways.  I believe the entire purpose for the regulations is just so the government can make money off the sales of it.  I don't think it has much to do with safety.

Why the hell would anyone fire a gun near a school?  Of course you should face serious punishment for that.  

I have actually been arrested for a DUI right in front of a school at night.  I was arrested and spent the night in jail.  I lost my license for 6 months, had to change my insurance, paid thousands in fees, had to get a breathalyzer in my car, served house arrest for a weekend and was on probation for a year.  As a 21 year old at the time it was life changing for me.  I knew that if I did it again I would lose my license even longer and serve even more time in jail along with larger fines.  Was I able to continue drinking, of course, but I didn't drink and drive any more.  The thing about going out and buying alcohol right after getting a DUI is that you no longer have an ID and would have to get a new ID in order to purchase alcohol at certain locations.  I remember not being allowed into a bar in Chicago after a Cub's game because I didn't have my driver's license.

If I were to get in an accident that night that seriously injured or killed someone I would most likely still be in jail today.  If I shot a gun there I'm not sure what would have happened, probably not much.  Paid some fines and that's about it as far as I know unless I was firing at someone or was on school grounds.

 
Hawkeye21 said:
Making it and then distributing it is what I meant.  I know it's legal to make your own beer, it's not legal to distill liquor though.  As for distribution, it depends on the state like I said before.  Just because they are laws and regulations does not mean they crack down on them hard.  I don't really see how they are harming anything anyways.  I believe the entire purpose for the regulations is just so the government can make money off the sales of it.  I don't think it has much to do with safety.

Why the hell would anyone fire a gun near a school?  Of course you should face serious punishment for that.  

I have actually been arrested for a DUI right in front of a school at night.  I was arrested and spent the night in jail.  I lost my license for 6 months, had to change my insurance, paid thousands in fees, had to get a breathalyzer in my car, served house arrest for a weekend and was on probation for a year.  As a 21 year old at the time it was life changing for me.  I knew that if I did it again I would lose my license even longer and serve even more time in jail along with larger fines.  Was I able to continue drinking, of course, but I didn't drink and drive any more.  The thing about going out and buying alcohol right after getting a DUI is that you no longer have an ID and would have to get a new ID in order to purchase alcohol at certain locations.  I remember not being allowed into a bar in Chicago after a Cub's game because I didn't have my driver's license.

If I were to get in an accident that night that seriously injured or killed someone I would most likely still be in jail today.  If I shot a gun there I'm not sure what would have happened, probably not much.  Paid some fines and that's about it as far as I know unless I was firing at someone or was on school grounds.
Click to expand...
I would recheck your facts. There are ways around it. But they all lead to the government either getting money or knowing you have a still. You can get a permit to make "Fuel Alcohol". But who says you aren't drinking it. Can we apply the same to handguns and call them tools. As long as I promise to hold the gun by the barrel and hammer nails with the handle? 

The underlined statement is an interesting one. Since we can't tell what someone is going to use an AR15 for, we need to ban them all in order to make society safe. But, someone that wants to distill moonshine (and possibly drive drunk or cause blindness), gets the response "I don't really see how they are harming anything anyways". In one sentence you summed up the reason why there is a problem. 88k alcohol related deaths per year. 10k of which are DUI deaths. You can see how every gun is harming people, but not alcohol. 

Why would anyone fire a gun near a school? Have you looked around many of the schools? They have businesses and homes just like any other neighborhood. Things happen. We charge drug dealers the same way. It's not as though they are interacting with kids or that kids are even present. Or that these crimes happen during school hours. But, they are considered as school crimes due to proximity. Don't we have gun free zones at schools? The same we have drug free zones? Why would you be surprised? 

You got a DUI and lost your drivers license. You didn't lose your ability to purchase alcohol. If you went to the DMV you could have got a state issued license. What is the equivalent for someone that commits a firearm offense? Can they buy a gun with a state id? This is why your argument that alcohol is regulated as much as guns is ridiculous. You are walking, breathing proof. 

Your last paragraph needs to relate to today's laws. If you were caught driving drunk, how much has changed between when you were 21 and today? Would you still lose your license? Would you spend a day in jail? Would you have probation, house arrest, breathalyzer in your car? If you fired a gun today, would you pay a fine? Would you be able to own a gun ever again?

You know the answers. Gun regulation and the stigma around guns has changed. Alcohol and drunk driving, not so much. 

 
Sheriff: Kylie Rae Harris caused fatal crash that killed her and 16-year-old girl

Authorities  said alcohol is also suspected.

"The toxicology report from (the) investigation will confirm or deny alcohol or other substances in both drivers," Hogrefe said.

The Taos News reported that Harris had a prior DWI conviction in Collin County, Texas, in 2017 and had been ordered to install an ignition interlock device on her vehicle, according to court records.
Click to expand...
If this 16 year old was killed by a mass shooter in her school, there would be 24 hour coverage and calls for change. Since it was caused by a drunk driver with prior DWI conviction, it's just another acceptable death. 

 
KCitons said:
Sheriff: Kylie Rae Harris caused fatal crash that killed her and 16-year-old girl

If this 16 year old was killed by a mass shooter in her school, there would be 24 hour coverage and calls for change. Since it was caused by a drunk driver with prior DWI conviction, it's just another acceptable death. 
Click to expand...
If she killed multiple kids while they were in school while driving drunk then it would get a lot more press.  I think the media has been that way for a very long time.  There are thousands of single shootings that don't make national news as well.

 
Hawkeye21 said:
If she killed multiple kids while they were in school while driving drunk then it would get a lot more press.  I think the media has been that way for a very long time.  There are thousands of single shootings that don't make national news as well.
Click to expand...
A 16 year old lost to a drunk driver is the same as a 16 year old lost to gun violence. 

We must make bigger changes to gun laws to make sure that as few 16 year olds as possible die from gun violence. We don't feel the need to make any bigger changes to prevent the same from drunk drivers. Eventually (perhaps in 50 years) autonomous cars will solve the problem. Until then, thoughts and prayers. 

 
KCitons said:
A 16 year old lost to a drunk driver is the same as a 16 year old lost to gun violence. 

We must make bigger changes to gun laws to make sure that as few 16 year olds as possible die from gun violence. We don't feel the need to make any bigger changes to prevent the same from drunk drivers. Eventually (perhaps in 50 years) autonomous cars will solve the problem. Until then, thoughts and prayers. 
Click to expand...
Please explain to me how we don't feel the need to make bigger changes to prevent deaths from drunk drivers.

 
Hawkeye21 said:
Please explain to me how we don't feel the need to make bigger changes to prevent deaths from drunk drivers.
Click to expand...
We lose more people to drunk drivers than we do to gun violence. Proposed universal background checks and red flag laws could be applied todrinkers as well to reduce incidents. The singer that killed that 16 year old girl had a DWI conviction in 2017. If someone had been convicted of attempting to shoot a 16 year old in 2017, would universal background check have prevented him from getting a gun today?

What proposed changes have you seen in the last 10 years in regards to drunk driving laws? (especially from a federal level) Any safety features that are not required by law does not count. Those features are not specific to drunk drivers, as they benefit sober drivers as well. 

 
KCitons said:
We lose more people to drunk drivers than we do to gun violence. Proposed universal background checks and red flag laws could be applied todrinkers as well to reduce incidents. The singer that killed that 16 year old girl had a DWI conviction in 2017. If someone had been convicted of attempting to shoot a 16 year old in 2017, would universal background check have prevented him from getting a gun today?

What proposed changes have you seen in the last 10 years in regards to drunk driving laws? (especially from a federal level) Any safety features that are not required by law does not count. Those features are not specific to drunk drivers, as they benefit sober drivers as well. 
Click to expand...
My point is that things are constantly being worked on to reduce drinking and driving and that there doesn't seem to be much push back against it.  The nation is pretty much all in agreement that they want to minimize drunk driving.  https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/strategies.html

 
Hawkeye21 said:
My point is that things are constantly being worked on to reduce drinking and driving and that there doesn't seem to be much push back against it.  The nation is pretty much all in agreement that they want to minimize drunk driving.  https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/strategies.html
Click to expand...
The nation is pretty much in agreement that they want to minimize mass shootings as well. In order to do that, they've looked at ways to prevent people from obtaining firearms if they have a violent background. We don't do the same thing when someone has an alcohol abuse background. As is evident from this latest incident. I doubt I could find stats, but I would like to see the number of repeat offenders when it comes to gun violence vs the number of repeat offenders when it comes to DWI's.

 
Hawkeye21 said:
Please explain to me how we don't feel the need to make bigger changes to prevent deaths from drunk drivers.
Click to expand...
Evidently because there isn't 24/7 news coverage of DUIs and and there aren't daily rallies, people don't care about this stuff.  

Meanwhile, I doubt he could find one person that is disagreement that most of the laws are a joke and would want to crack down on DUIs more.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
Evidently because there isn't 24/7 news coverage of DUIs and and there aren't daily rallies, people don't care about this stuff.  

Meanwhile, I doubt he could find one person that is disagreement that most of the laws are a joke and would want to crack down on DUIs more.  
Click to expand...
Perhaps the family of the 16 year old?

 
KCitons said:
A 16 year old lost to a drunk driver is the same as a 16 year old lost to gun violence. 

We must make bigger changes to gun laws to make sure that as few 16 year olds as possible die from gun violence. We don't feel the need to make any bigger changes to prevent the same from drunk drivers. Eventually (perhaps in 50 years) autonomous cars will solve the problem. Until then, thoughts and prayers. 
Click to expand...
We do not know at this time if Ms. Harris was drunk.  So please do not put it as a fact that a 16 year old was killed by a drunk driver. 

At this point it was an accident at high speed, could alcohol be involved sure, but at this point that has not been determined.   

And how many gun accidents happen with alcohol?  That would be the comparison not mass shootings. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
greenroom said:
We do not know at this time if Ms. Harris was drunk.  So please do not put it as a fact that a 16 year old was killed by a drunk driver. 

At this point it was an accident at high speed, could alcohol be involved sure, but at this point that has not been determined.   

And how many gun accidents happen with alcohol?  That would be the comparison not mass shootings. 
Click to expand...
How many times have the police stated that alcohol was suspected, but it turns out to be incorrect. They rule it out with tons of accidents. 

Great. Let's use gun accidents. How do we prevent those from happening? Gun laws or alcohol laws?

 
greenroom said:
We do not know at this time if Ms. Harris was drunk.  So please do not put it as a fact that a 16 year old was killed by a drunk driver. 

At this point it was an accident at high speed, could alcohol be involved sure, but at this point that has not been determined.   

And how many gun accidents happen with alcohol?  That would be the comparison not mass shootings. 
Click to expand...
Actually we settled on miles driven vs bullets fired

 
KCitons said:
We lose more people to drunk drivers than we do to gun violence. Proposed universal background checks and red flag laws could be applied todrinkers as well to reduce incidents. The singer that killed that 16 year old girl had a DWI conviction in 2017. If someone had been convicted of attempting to shoot a 16 year old in 2017, would universal background check have prevented him from getting a gun today?

What proposed changes have you seen in the last 10 years in regards to drunk driving laws? (especially from a federal level) Any safety features that are not required by law does not count. Those features are not specific to drunk drivers, as they benefit sober drivers as well. 
Click to expand...
Do more people die each year in the United States from gun violence or drunk driving?

Gun deaths in the United States eclipse deaths during alcohol-impaired crashes, and by wide margins on pretty much every metric, according to federal data.

https://www.quora.com/Are-more-people-killed-by-drunk-drivers-than-guns

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons said:
How would you feel if your 16 year old was killed by a drunk driver that was convicted of DWI two years ago? 

Did our laws do enough to protect the children? 
Click to expand...
So you are proving my point. 

Didn't someone accuse you of not reading posts in the other thread? 

 
belljr said:
Do more people die each year in the United States from gun violence or drunk driving?

Gun deaths in the United States eclipse deaths during alcohol-impaired crashes, and by wide margins on pretty much every metric, according to federal data.

https://www.quora.com/Are-more-people-killed-by-drunk-drivers-than-guns
Click to expand...
I see gun violence as a subset of gun deaths. I remove all suicides from gun deaths in the U.S. because they are not an act committed on another person. 

But, if we are going to lump all gun deaths, then we need to include all alcohol related deaths. In 2016 there were 38,600 gun deaths and 88,000 alcohol related deaths in 2014 (quick google search of CDC stats)

 
KCitons said:
How would you feel if your 16 year old was killed by a drunk driver that was convicted of DWI two years ago? 

Did our laws do enough to protect the children? 
Click to expand...
I would be upset with the driver for driving while intoxicated.

I certainly don’t expect a single DWI to result in a 2+ year driving ban.  That’s ludicrous.

 
jonessed said:
I would be upset with the driver for driving while intoxicated.

I certainly don’t expect a single DWI to result in a 2+ year driving ban.  That’s ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Who said there needs to be a driving ban? A 2+ year alcohol ban might be the more appropriate approach. I think about the number of people that have been arrested recently for making threats of a mass shooting. Even Red Flag laws would identify someone that is a potential threat. Those are essentially the same as a first DWI. What would the level of outrage be if one of these Red Flag people were allowed to buy an assault rifle and committed a mass shooting? Why do we give people second chances to kill someone by drinking and driving, but we want to have background checks to keep guns from someone that has a violent background 

 
KCitons said:
Who said there needs to be a driving ban? A 2+ year alcohol ban might be the more appropriate approach. I think about the number of people that have been arrested recently for making threats of a mass shooting. Even Red Flag laws would identify someone that is a potential threat. Those are essentially the same as a first DWI. What would the level of outrage be if one of these Red Flag people were allowed to buy an assault rifle and committed a mass shooting? Why do we give people second chances to kill someone by drinking and driving, but we want to have background checks to keep guns from someone that has a violent background 
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how you would enforce a 2-year alcohol ban without an ankle monitor and I also find that a ridiculous punishment for a first offender.

I think your comparison of a first time DUI offender with no record and someone trying to buy a gun with prior convictions involving violence is a non-starter.  I just don’t see the similarities.

 
jonessed said:
I’m not sure how you would enforce a 2-year alcohol ban without an ankle monitor and I also find that a ridiculous punishment for a first offender.

I think your comparison of a first time DUI offender with no record and someone trying to buy a gun with prior convictions involving violence is a non-starter.  I just don’t see the similarities.
Click to expand...
How would you enforce any gun ban, universal background check, or red flag law?

There are too many incidents where a person with a first offense DUI kills someone while driving under the influence. Why do we use data to determine that we need to ban certain guns, but we ignore data on repeat dui offenders. Do we need to give people 2 or 3 chances to kill someone?

 
Last June, 4 teenagers were killed in an auto accident. Toxicology showed that they had alcohol in their system. They also weren't wearing their seat belts and the car was traveling at high speed. 

The police are still researching who supplied the kids with alcohol. But, the lone survivor and other witnesses are not talking. 

"My kids tell me and other people tell me that constantly they hear people saying, 'Why are they doing this, why is the sheriff's office doing this, why is law enforcement doing this Haven't these people gone through enough? My God just let it go.' And here's the deal. We can't let that go, for this reason. They have gone through an unbelievable experience that most of us can't imagine how bad it is. Our job is to get to the bottom of it but most importantly to see that nothing like that ever happens again," Sheriff Jeff Davis said.
Click to expand...
Just let it go? This is why I say that people are not as serious about alcohol in our society as they are about guns in our society. If those 4 girls would have been killed at school by a mass shooter, people would be demanding change.

While investigating the source of the alcohol, police made 12 arrests of minors shoplifting alcohol, three minors in possession of alcohol and one teen with a fake ID.
Click to expand...
How many people under the age of 21 are shoplifting guns? This is why I say guns are regulated more heavily than alcohol. 

 
KCitons said:
Just let it go? This is why I say that people are not as serious about alcohol in our society as they are about guns in our society. If those 4 girls would have been killed at school by a mass shooter, people would be demanding change.
Click to expand...
Comparing a bunch of drunk kids to a mass shooter is dumb. A better comparison would be to hunting accidents. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
Comparing a bunch of drunk kids to a mass shooter is dumb. A better comparison would be to hunting accidents. 
Click to expand...
How do you think hunting accidents would be a better comparison?

In my opinion alcohol is:

1 - an unnecessary "luxury" that has no real purpose. (unlike the use of guns for hunting)

2 -  regulated in some ways similarly (age), but in other ways very differently (how it's marketed and merchandised)

3 - barely a blip on the radar. Four kids dying due to alcohol doesn't raise concern.  Nobody should be surprised when mass shootings also become a blip on the radar. 

 
KCitons said:
How do you think hunting accidents would be a better comparison?

In my opinion alcohol is:

1 - an unnecessary "luxury" that has no real purpose. (unlike the use of guns for hunting)

2 -  regulated in some ways similarly (age), but in other ways very differently (how it's marketed and merchandised)

3 - barely a blip on the radar. Four kids dying due to alcohol doesn't raise concern.  Nobody should be surprised when mass shootings also become a blip on the radar. 
Click to expand...
I am not sure why you think that alcohol related deaths has not been a big concern in this country.

 
Godsbrother said:
I am not sure why you think that alcohol related deaths has not been a big concern in this country.
Click to expand...
I guess because the witnesses that police are questioning are saying "let it go". 

When a mass shooting is perpetrated by a minor, everyone wants to know how he got the gun. If I said "let it go", how do you think that would be received?

 
KCitons said:
How do you think hunting accidents would be a better comparison?
Click to expand...
Because mass shootings are intentional. Hunting accidents are accidents. Like car accidents are accidents.

A mass shooter is deliberately responsible for the killings. 

A store that didnt stop kids from shoplifting booze is not. 

 
KCitons said:
I guess because the witnesses that police are questioning are saying "let it go". 

When a mass shooting is perpetrated by a minor, everyone wants to know how he got the gun. If I said "let it go", how do you think that would be received?
Click to expand...
You are talking about a few people in a specific case.  There are idiots that think Sandy Hook was a conspiracy and not indicative of any problem we have with guns in this country.

I just don't get the point of trying to tie the two together.  Both are serious problems but they aren't equivalent by any means and need to be address differently.

 
parasaurolophus said:
Because mass shootings are intentional. Hunting accidents are accidents. Like car accidents are accidents.

A mass shooter is deliberately responsible for the killings. 

A store that didnt stop kids from shoplifting booze is not. 
Click to expand...
We market booze and guns differently. Guns have essentially become taboo. 

We merchandise guns in locked cases and behind counters. We merchandise booze out in the open. 

To call one an accident, makes me ask, if we treated booze like guns, would there be less alcohol related deaths? Especially underage deaths?

 
Godsbrother said:
You are talking about a few people in a specific case.  There are idiots that think Sandy Hook was a conspiracy and not indicative of any problem we have with guns in this country.

I just don't get the point of trying to tie the two together.  Both are serious problems but they aren't equivalent by any means and need to be address differently.
Click to expand...
But they aren't society and legislation has made them somewhat the same. Tobacco is now being lumped into that as well. Twenty one is the magic age to buy alcohol, guns or tobacco. 

The problem is preventive deaths. All three contribute to those numbers. 

 
KCitons said:
We market booze and guns differently. Guns have essentially become taboo. 

We merchandise guns in locked cases and behind counters. We merchandise booze out in the open. 

To call one an accident, makes me ask, if we treated booze like guns, would there be less alcohol related deaths? Especially underage deaths?
Click to expand...
Of course there would be fewer alcohol related deaths. Does anybody actually argue against that?

KCitons said:
I guess because the witnesses that police are questioning are saying "let it go". 

When a mass shooting is perpetrated by a minor, everyone wants to know how he got the gun. If I said "let it go", how do you think that would be received?
Click to expand...
When a child finds a handgun and accidentally shoots himself it is not uncommon for charges to not be filed. That is a much similar situation to what happened here. You keep conflating a mass shooting with an auto accident. 

If a minor got a hold of alcohol and got wasted and intentionally drove into an elementary school parking lot and was doing donuts and running over kids, you can rest assured nobody would be saying "let it go." There would be a massive investigation into how the alcohol was acquired. 

Also people are saying let it go because it is much more like when a child finds a parent's gun and shoots himself. It is very common for charges not to be filed in those situations and for the case to not get attention and for people to just "let it go."

 
parasaurolophus said:
Of course there would be fewer alcohol related deaths. Does anybody actually argue against that?

When a child finds a handgun and accidentally shoots himself it is not uncommon for charges to not be filed. That is a much similar situation to what happened here. You keep conflating a mass shooting with an auto accident. 

If a minor got a hold of alcohol and got wasted and intentionally drove into an elementary school parking lot and was doing donuts and running over kids, you can rest assured nobody would be saying "let it go." There would be a massive investigation into how the alcohol was acquired. 

Also people are saying let it go because it is much more like when a child finds a parent's gun and shoots himself. It is very common for charges not to be filed in those situations and for the case to not get attention and for people to just "let it go."
Click to expand...
I never compared it to "when a child finds a parents gun". I said when a 16-20 year old uses a gun to commit a mass shooting, people want to know where/how he got the gun. 

I'm not comparing auto accidents to purposeful shootings. I'm comparing loss of life by one means to loss of life by another. In this case, I have chosen to use the constant of dui deaths vs a number of variables. Currently, it's gun deaths. Specifically, mass shootings. But, we could certainly expand on cigarettes or even the sudden outrage over teenagers vaping. As soon as 1 or 2 people died from vaping, there were people that wanted bans on vaping products. That just doesn't happen with alcohol related deaths.

Four kids died due to alcohol, and the response to finding the contributing factor, in order to prevent it from happening again, is met with "let it go". Society continues to prove my point about how we feel about alcohol. 

 
KCitons said:
I never compared it to "when a child finds a parents gun". I said when a 16-20 year old uses a gun to commit a mass shooting, people want to know where/how he got the gun. 

I'm not comparing auto accidents to purposeful shootings. I'm comparing loss of life by one means to loss of life by another. In this case, I have chosen to use the constant of dui deaths vs a number of variables. Currently, it's gun deaths. Specifically, mass shootings. But, we could certainly expand on cigarettes or even the sudden outrage over teenagers vaping. As soon as 1 or 2 people died from vaping, there were people that wanted bans on vaping products. That just doesn't happen with alcohol related deaths.

Four kids died due to alcohol, and the response to finding the contributing factor, in order to prevent it from happening again, is met with "let it go". Society continues to prove my point about how we feel about alcohol. 
Click to expand...
I know what you are saying. I am saying your comparisons are terrible. I am trying to show you better comparisons because you are trying to remove intent which pretty much goes against the entire way we view almost everything in this country. 

Intent matters. Mass shootings are a deliberate act of evil using a gun. An alcohol related car accident is an accident. There will ALWAYS be a different mindset regarding these two events as there should be.

You aren't actually making a legitimate point, so nobody is proving your point.   

 
parasaurolophus said:
I know what you are saying. I am saying your comparisons are terrible. I am trying to show you better comparisons because you are trying to remove intent which pretty much goes against the entire way we view almost everything in this country. 

Intent matters. Mass shootings are a deliberate act of evil using a gun. An alcohol related car accident is an accident. There will ALWAYS be a different mindset regarding these two events as there should be.

You aren't actually making a legitimate point, so nobody is proving your point.   
Click to expand...
Sorry, society has to own the way we handle alcohol. Imagine you walk into a walmart and next to the Super Bowl Bud Lite display of 18 packs is a display of Glocks. Every time I've bought a gun, that gun (and the ammo) have been under lock and key. 

While I agree that intent is important for the action. The intent to prevent is also important. By locking up guns and ammo, our intent is to prevent those items from being obtained by someone that should not. What is our intent by leaving alcohol out where it can be obtained (illegally) by someone?

 
U.S. vehicle deaths topped 40,000 in 2017

In 2017, 2,364 teens in the United States aged 16-19 were killed, and about 300,000 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes.1 That means six teens aged 16-19 died every day due to motor vehicle crashes, and hundreds more were injured.

In 2017, young people aged 15-19 represented 6.5% of the U.S. population. However, motor vehicle injuries, both fatal and nonfatal, among young people in this age group represented about $13.1 billion, or almost 8%, of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries.1,3

2,364 young people dead and 300,000 injured ....... imagine if instead of automobiles being the instruments of those statistics it were guns. 

 
Stealthycat said:
U.S. vehicle deaths topped 40,000 in 2017

In 2017, 2,364 teens in the United States aged 16-19 were killed, and about 300,000 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes.1 That means six teens aged 16-19 died every day due to motor vehicle crashes, and hundreds more were injured.

In 2017, young people aged 15-19 represented 6.5% of the U.S. population. However, motor vehicle injuries, both fatal and nonfatal, among young people in this age group represented about $13.1 billion, or almost 8%, of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries.1,3

2,364 young people dead and 300,000 injured ....... imagine if instead of automobiles being the instruments of those statistics it were guns. 
Click to expand...
What are your suggestions for preventing or reducing these deaths?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
US Border Patrol Seizes Fentanyl Bricks Labeled With ‘CNN’ Logo (4/30/22 00:41 PST)
Replies
48
Views
1K
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
LawFitz
80+ UK Doctors: Failed COVID Policies Caused ‘Massive’ Harm, Especially to Children
2 3 4
Replies
185
Views
5K
RavenFan
R
GordonGekko
How The Activist MSM Is Burying Alleged SCOTUS Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (5/12/22 6:22 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Boston
Boston

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top