Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
KCitons

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

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, KCitons said:

It's interesting that the purpose of a knife is defined as being used to cut or puncture. But the purpose of a gun is to kill. Not to fire a projectile. 

Not quite the same.  You having fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Why do you keep going off in odd directions like this.  Why do you want to go further?  I know all of this and am not arguing against it.  I'm just seeing if you'll ever admit what guns are created for.  I agree with a lot of the same things as you when it comes to guns but I'm able to admit what they really are.

It's similar to the way the anti gun crowd wants to use the looks of a gun to determine it's level of danger. By saying it's main purpose is to kill (specifically humans), then it makes it sound much more dangerous than to say it's main purpose is for hunting animals. If you remove the former, it's much more unlikely that people agree to the proposed regulations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Not quite the same.  You having fun?

It is the same. How many cities have laws around knives and consider them concealed weapons?

Share this post


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

It's similar to the way the anti gun crowd wants to use the looks of a gun to determine it's level of danger. By saying it's main purpose is to kill (specifically humans), then it makes it sound much more dangerous than to say it's main purpose is for hunting animals. If you remove the former, it's much more unlikely that people agree to the proposed regulations.

 

I'm not having that debate though so no need for you to have it with me.

Share this post


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

It is the same. How many cities have laws around knives and consider them concealed weapons?

But it's not the same.  I don't know.  I know I can't bring a knife on a plane and I know I have to be careful with how big of a pocket knife I have on me when going into certain places like a sports stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

But it's not the same.  I don't know.  I know I can't bring a knife on a plane and I know I have to be careful with how big of a pocket knife I have on me when going into certain places like a sports stadium.

Why is that?

Could it be because the law defines a knife as more than something that can penetrate or cut? Which is how you defined it. Much different from how you defined a gun. 

I agree with your post above stating that I'm discussing specifics. That's an important subtlety when it comes to selling your agenda. There's a big difference between killing people and hunting. There's also a big difference between cutting a steak and cutting a person.  

Share this post


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

Why is that?

Could it be because the law defines a knife as more than something that can penetrate or cut? Which is how you defined it. Much different from how you defined a gun. 

I agree with your post above stating that I'm discussing specifics. That's an important subtlety when it comes to selling your agenda. There's a big difference between killing people and hunting. There's also a big difference between cutting a steak and cutting a person.  

I'm not selling any agenda though.  Just pointing out what guns are and why there shouldn't be any reason to deny what they are.  Whether you are pro or anti gun, there shouldn't be an argument over what they really are.

Share this post


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

Had the Baltimore shooting been with an AR15 or been at a church (like was originally reported) the anti gun group would made a bigger deal. As it is, the same number of deaths (1) and more injured (7) in Baltimore wasn't even mentioned. 

Again, why do you think that is?

I have a decent idea, but the real question is why do you keep changing the subject?  You said "nobody cared about gangs shooting each other 10 years ago."  That is very wrong. Neither of the two people pointing this out mentioned AR15s and Baltimore when they did. Why can't just just admit that was a silly thing to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm not selling any agenda though.  Just pointing out what guns are and why there shouldn't be any reason to deny what they are.  Whether you are pro or anti gun, there shouldn't be an argument over what they really are.

Why do you have a different definition for the purpose of knives vs guns? If I kill someone with a knife, it's still murder. If I carry a knife in a concealed manner, it's still unlawful. 

In order to achieve further regulations for guns, groups are wanting to make guns sound worse than they are. If the sole purpose if a gun is to kill, then every person that is shot should die?

Share this post


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

I have a decent idea, but the real question is why do you keep changing the subject?  You said "nobody cared about gangs shooting each other 10 years ago."  That is very wrong. Neither of the two people pointing this out mentioned AR15s and Baltimore when they did. Why can't just just admit that was a silly thing to say?

Okay. It was a silly thing to say.

Why was the Baltimore shooting not mentioned in the other thread? But the synagogue shooting was?

Share this post


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

Okay. It was a silly thing to say.

Why was the Baltimore shooting not mentioned in the other thread? But the synagogue shooting was?

Gracias.

I don't really know, I'm not in that thread. Generally speaking, people spend a lot more time talking about violence that strikes in odd or unusual places that everyone from every walk of life frequents than they do about places where violence of commonplace.  People feel like they can avoid places like West Baltimore, so the gun violence there doesn't strike fear into them. And to a lesser extent we also generally don't pay much attention to acts of violence when they occur on private property unless the motive is something unusual or bizarre.

Gun violence in houses of worship or schools or malls, OTOH, strike fear into everyone because nobody can avoid them.  That makes them much more likely to be a topic of conversation and also a more effective tool for those pushing for gun control.  Tell a white suburban mom in the Midwest that there was a shooting at a cookout in West Baltimore and the motives are unknown and she probably won't care- she has no frame of reference for how common shootings are there and can't personally relate.  Tell her some people got shot at a mall by a crazy person or a terrorist and she'll immediately visualize someone gunning down her and her kids at the local mall while they're shopping for back to school clothes.

Share this post


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

Gracias.

I don't really know, I'm not in that thread. Generally speaking, people spend a lot more time talking about violence that strikes in odd or unusual places that everyone from every walk of life frequents than they do about places where violence of commonplace.  People feel like they can avoid places like West Baltimore, so the gun violence there doesn't strike fear into them. And to a lesser extent we also generally don't pay much attention to acts of violence when they occur on private property unless the motive is something unusual or bizarre.

Gun violence in houses of worship or schools or malls, OTOH, strike fear into everyone because nobody can avoid them.  That makes them much more likely to be a topic of conversation and also a more effective tool for those pushing for gun control.  Tell a white suburban mom in the Midwest that there was a shooting at a cookout in West Baltimore and the motives are unknown and she probably won't care- she has no frame of reference for how common shootings are there and can't personally relate.  Tell her some people got shot at a mall by a crazy person or a terrorist and she'll immediately visualize someone gunning down her and her kids at the local mall while they're shopping for back to school clothes.

You're Welcome.

While I appreciate your comments and can see some validity to the bolded, I am having conversations here with some of the same posters in that other thread. So, in my opinion, it seems as though they aren't concerned with the Baltimore shooting because it doesn't fit the agenda they've been pushing. It wasn't a white male. It wasn't a hate crime. It doesn't appear to be random. It wasn't carried out with a weapon that they are wanting to ban. 

It didn't happen in a private place. It was a public street. And, based on the reports of uncooperative witnesses and there being multiple guns used by multiple parties, it appears that this was more than likely gang violence. Again, my opinion, but it appears the anti gun crowd doesn't want to clutter their agenda with things that they know will never be effected by their proposed gun regulations/bans. What they will do is use the number of gun deaths (which include gang violence) to attempt to prove the need for further regulation.

 

Share this post


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

You're Welcome.

While I appreciate your comments and can see some validity to the bolded, I am having conversations here with some of the same posters in that other thread. So, in my opinion, it seems as though they aren't concerned with the Baltimore shooting because it doesn't fit the agenda they've been pushing. It wasn't a white male. It wasn't a hate crime. It doesn't appear to be random. It wasn't carried out with a weapon that they are wanting to ban. 

It didn't happen in a private place. It was a public street. And, based on the reports of uncooperative witnesses and there being multiple guns used by multiple parties, it appears that this was more than likely gang violence. Again, my opinion, but it appears the anti gun crowd doesn't want to clutter their agenda with things that they know will never be effected by their proposed gun regulations/bans. What they will do is use the number of gun deaths (which include gang violence) to attempt to prove the need for further regulation. 

 

You lost me here, sorry.  I explained why I think people are talking about one but not the other.  The disparate reactions are fairly common and certainly not limited to "the anti gun crowd,"- for one thing the media talks far more about one than the other, and the media tends to drive public discourse. So I'm just not seeing this as some sort of nefarious messaging plot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

You lost me here, sorry.  I explained why I think people are talking about one but not the other.  The disparate reactions are fairly common and certainly not limited to "the anti gun crowd,"- for one thing the media talks far more about one than the other, and the media tends to drive public discourse. So I'm just not seeing this as some sort of nefarious messaging plot.

Then I guess we have nothing more to discuss. You see it one way, I see it another. 

Share this post


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

Why do you have a different definition for the purpose of knives vs guns? If I kill someone with a knife, it's still murder. If I carry a knife in a concealed manner, it's still unlawful. 

In order to achieve further regulations for guns, groups are wanting to make guns sound worse than they are. If the sole purpose if a gun is to kill, then every person that is shot should die?

They are two different things so they are going to have different definitions.  I haven't been talking about murder this entire time so I don't know why you keep going there.  Isn't a pocket knife considered concealed?  I didn't know it was unlawful to carry a knife.

I agree that certain groups try to make some guns sound worse than they are.  Some don't actually know and others are pushing their agenda.  There is mistake saying that a gun is made to kill though.  That's why they were created.  All one has to do is read up on the history of the gun.

I'm running out of ways to explain it in a manner that I think you will understand.  I'm not sure what else to tell you.  I'm either not articulate enough or you just can't understand what I'm trying to say.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

They are two different things so they are going to have different definitions.  I haven't been talking about murder this entire time so I don't know why you keep going there.  Isn't a pocket knife considered concealed?  I didn't know it was unlawful to carry a knife.

I agree that certain groups try to make some guns sound worse than they are.  Some don't actually know and others are pushing their agenda.  There is mistake saying that a gun is made to kill though.  That's why they were created.  All one has to do is read up on the history of the gun.

I'm running out of ways to explain it in a manner that I think you will understand.  I'm not sure what else to tell you.  I'm either not articulate enough or you just can't understand what I'm trying to say.

 

The bolded goes both ways. 

Most cities have laws on carrying concealed knives where the blades are longer than a certain length. Usually 3", give or take. 

Let's say I agree with you that a guns was created to kill. Now what? Is the response from the anti gun crowd, "we must ban killing machines to make society safer"? That's not what I agreed to by saying guns were created to kill. And why I think it's an important distinction to defend. 

The comparison I mentioned up thread was that gasoline was byproduct of kerosene. Until the internal combustion engine, they burned off all the gasoline. It was worthless. What is the purpose of gasoline today? What an item is used for removes the original purpose. Gasoline could be used to start fires or make bombs. That's a small subset of it's actual purpose. Killing of people is a small subset of what guns are used for as well. 

Share this post


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

The bolded goes both ways. 

Most cities have laws on carrying concealed knives where the blades are longer than a certain length. Usually 3", give or take. 

Let's say I agree with you that a guns was created to kill. Now what? Is the response from the anti gun crowd, "we must ban killing machines to make society safer"? That's not what I agreed to by saying guns were created to kill. And why I think it's an important distinction to defend. 

The comparison I mentioned up thread was that gasoline was byproduct of kerosene. Until the internal combustion engine, they burned off all the gasoline. It was worthless. What is the purpose of gasoline today? What an item is used for removes the original purpose. Gasoline could be used to start fires or make bombs. That's a small subset of it's actual purpose. Killing of people is a small subset of what guns are used for as well. 

I don't know why there has to be a "but" in your response.  All I was ever looking for was a very simple answer to the question and that question only had one simple answer to it.  That's it, just wanted you to admit it and that's all.  No excuses, no BS and no other agenda from me.  I'm not trying to set you up if that's what you're concerned about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I don't know why there has to be a "but" in your response.  All I was ever looking for was a very simple answer to the question and that question only had one simple answer to it.  That's it, just wanted you to admit it and that's all.  No excuses, no BS and no other agenda from me.  I'm not trying to set you up if that's what you're concerned about.

But it's not a 100% truthful answer. I know there are guns that are purchased to do things other than kill. There are a lot of Western shooting competitions where revolvers are used. They are never going to be used to hunt or for self defense. There are target rifles that are used for competition. The design of those does not make them a good choice for hunting or self defense. 

If I can admit that some guns are created to kill, then you should be able to admit that there are guns where killing is not their intended purpose. 

Share this post


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

But it's not a 100% truthful answer. I know there are guns that are purchased to do things other than kill. There are a lot of Western shooting competitions where revolvers are used. They are never going to be used to hunt or for self defense. There are target rifles that are used for competition. The design of those does not make them a good choice for hunting or self defense. 

If I can admit that some guns are created to kill, then you should be able to admit that there are guns where killing is not their intended purpose. 

I'm not asking why certain people buy guns or what all the different things people can use guns for though.  The question is what guns were created for.  Just look at the history of the gun.  Go all the way back to when the Chinese created gun powder and how it eventually led to guns.  Why were they made?  Why were they created?

What the owner of that gun intends to do with that gun makes no difference in what I've been asking.  If I made an old console TV into an aquarium it would not change the fact that it was created to watch programming on.

Edited by Hawkeye21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm not asking why certain people buy guns or what all the different things people can use guns for though.  The question is what guns were created for.  Just look at the history of the gun.  Go all the way back to when the Chinese created gun powder and how it eventually led to guns.  Why were they made?  Why were they created?

What the owner of that gun intends to do with that gun makes no difference in what I've been asking.  If I made an old console TV into an aquarium it would not change the fact that it was created to watch programming on.

It does when you want to have a conversation about regulations or bans. That's my point.

Share this post


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

Cars spend most of their existence parked. So the primary use of a car is to be parked. 

Which is probably why the regulations are so lenient. 

Share this post


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

It does when you want to have a conversation about regulations or bans. That's my point.

That's great but when I'm asking you a question that doesn't involve regulations or bans why can't you answer it honestly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

That's great but when I'm asking you a question that doesn't involve regulations or bans why can't you answer it honestly?

Actually, you don't like my honest answer. You've chosen to ignore it and try to make me agree with your opinion. I've given numerous examples of guns that are not used for killing things. You ignore those as well.

Share this post


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

Actually, you don't like my honest answer. You've chosen to ignore it and try to make me agree with your opinion. I've given numerous examples of guns that are not used for killing things. You ignore those as well.

I have others reading this thread are laughing at it.  I'm not asking how each person uses their gun.  I know they are not all used for killing but that does not nullify what guns were created for.  I keep asking you the first question but you keep answering these other questions that I'm not asking you.

Guns were created for what reason?  To kill (I think it's fair to add in seriously injure as well)

Can they be used for other things as well?  Yes

Does every person who buys a gun do so because they intend to use it to kill?  No.

Are all guns used to kill?  No

Does owning a gun mean you will shoot another human?  No

Are all guns successful at killing?  No

The bold question has been the only one I wanted a simple answer to.  An answer that does not tie in all the other questions I posted above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I have others reading this thread are laughing at it.  I'm not asking how each person uses their gun.  I know they are not all used for killing but that does not nullify what guns were created for.  I keep asking you the first question but you keep answering these other questions that I'm not asking you.

Guns were created for what reason?  To kill (I think it's fair to add in seriously injure as well)

Can they be used for other things as well?  Yes

Does every person who buys a gun do so because they intend to use it to kill?  No.

Are all guns used to kill?  No

Does owning a gun mean you will shoot another human?  No

Are all guns successful at killing?  No

The bold question has been the only one I wanted a simple answer to.  An answer that does not tie in all the other questions I posted above.

Then why do you want bans on certain guns?

Share this post


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

Then why do you want bans on certain guns?

Have I actually said that I want that to happen?  I don't remember but I know I'm open to the idea of it.  I don't know if it will actually make a difference or not but I'm getting to the point where I'm open to trying something to see it if can have a positive affect.  A lot of my family and friends are in education and most of us have children in school or going to school soon.  It scares the crap out me that a shooting could happen any day and I've become more open to ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Have I actually said that I want that to happen?  I don't remember but I know I'm open to the idea of it.  I don't know if it will actually make a difference or not but I'm getting to the point where I'm open to trying something to see it if can have a positive affect.  A lot of my family and friends are in education and most of us have children in school or going to school soon.  It scares the crap out me that a shooting could happen any day and I've become more open to ideas.

I believe you've mentioned that you are okay with banning AR rifles. Are you?

Do you know the odds of being involved in a mass shooting? And the odds of that mass shooting being in a school? Are you scared of your family and friends being killed by a drunk driver? Which do you think carries the greater odds of happening?

Share this post


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

I believe you've mentioned that you are okay with banning AR rifles. Are you?

Do you know the odds of being involved in a mass shooting? And the odds of that mass shooting being in a school? Are you scared of your family and friends being killed by a drunk driver? Which do you think carries the greater odds of happening?

I'm open to something like that.  Not sure how it would work though since there would need to be more specifics on what exact models of guns.  AR rifles is too broad.

I know the odds are very low but that doesn't stop me from being concerned.  I have my concerns about car accidents too but I know vehicles are safer than they've ever been.  I also know that when I'm driving I have some control over the situation by being a defensive driver.

What's more terrifying for most people, a drunk driver or a person dressed up in riot gear armed with rifles, shotguns and ammo?  The drunk driver scenario is much more likely but thinking of the other scenario is much more frightening.  Maybe I just think of it more because of the connection I have to teachers and school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm open to something like that.  Not sure how it would work though since there would need to be more specifics on what exact models of guns.  AR rifles is too broad.

I know the odds are very low but that doesn't stop me from being concerned.  I have my concerns about car accidents too but I know vehicles are safer than they've ever been.  I also know that when I'm driving I have some control over the situation by being a defensive driver.

What's more terrifying for most people, a drunk driver or a person dressed up in riot gear armed with rifles, shotguns and ammo?  The drunk driver scenario is much more likely but thinking of the other scenario is much more frightening.  Maybe I just think of it more because of the connection I have to teachers and school.

Or maybe you think of it more because of the media coverage. The only time you hear of drunk driving is when someone famous, or a family of five is killed on their way to Disneyland. If the coverage was flipped, we'd be talking about alcohol regulation.

Share this post


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

Or maybe you think of it more because of the media coverage. The only time you hear of drunk driving is when someone famous, or a family of five is killed on their way to Disneyland. If the coverage was flipped, we'd be talking about alcohol regulation.

It's not a media thing for me.  School shootings are more personal for me because of who I know and because I have kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

It's not a media thing for me.  School shootings are more personal for me because of who I know and because I have kids.

So you're ignoring the odds and the facts? 

If it's personal for someone because they lost a friend or loved one to a drunk driver, wouldn't that be an important factor? Especially when odds of another loved one being a victim of a drunk driver is much higher than being a victim of a mass shooting?

Share this post


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

So you're ignoring the odds and the facts? 

If it's personal for someone because they lost a friend or loved one to a drunk driver, wouldn't that be an important factor? Especially when odds of another loved one being a victim of a drunk driver is much higher than being a victim of a mass shooting?

I'm not ignoring anything, just stating my feelings.  Personal experiences are always important factors for each person.  Why exactly are you going in this direction now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm not ignoring anything, just stating my feelings.  Personal experiences are always important factors for each person.  Why exactly are you going in this direction now?

You mean the one the title of the thread mentions? Which direction were you expecting?

You spent most of the day trying to get me to admit that guns were created to kill. Now you want to ignore my personal experience along with stats/odds. 

Seems like there's a double standard here. One of us has to be honest, the other not so much.

 

Share this post


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

You mean the one the title of the thread mentions? Which direction were you expecting?

You spent most of the day trying to get me to admit that guns were created to kill. Now you want to ignore my personal experience along with stats/odds. 

Seems like there's a double standard here. One of us has to be honest, the other not so much.

 

I lost track of which thread this was since they all end up talking about the same thing.  I don't think I have a double standard here.  I'd prefer to keep the discussions separate since they are to entirely different subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bartender arrested for serving shooter.

Quote

Hight was found to have a blood alcohol content of .333 during an autopsy, more than four times the legal limit.

 

We keep ignoring the role that alcohol plays in violence.

 

Quote

On average, roughly 40 percent of inmates who are incarcerated for violent offenses were under the influence of alcohol during the time of their crime. Many of these criminals had an estimated blood alcohol content (BAC) level of more than three times the legal limit at the time of their arrest.

 

Share this post


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

Bartender arrested for serving shooter.

Quote

Hight was found to have a blood alcohol content of .333 during an autopsy, more than four times the legal limit.

 

We keep ignoring the role that alcohol plays in violence.

 

Quote

On average, roughly 40 percent of inmates who are incarcerated for violent offenses were under the influence of alcohol during the time of their crime. Many of these criminals had an estimated blood alcohol content (BAC) level of more than three times the legal limit at the time of their arrest.

I agree that the sellers and producers of products that are designed to have a negative impact should be held accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, toshiba said:

I agree that the sellers and producers of products that are designed to have a negative impact should be held accountable.

And yet you're only vocal about change for certain products and producers. 

(Remember, you didn't say the word ban)

Share this post


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

I agree that the sellers and producers of products that are designed to have a negative impact should be held accountable.

And yet you're only vocal about change for certain products and producers. 

(Remember, you didn't say the word ban)

What am I vocal about?

Share this post


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

What am I vocal about?

Let's start with this comment from last May

Quote

Repeal the 2nd amendment for starters

 

I've been discussing the alcohol problem for over 5 years. I've pointed out the deaths caused by alcohol and more recently posted about the role that alcohol plays in violent crimes. 

It's obvious that some people just want to gun regulation for the sake of gun regulation. They don't want to look at the underlying causes of gun violence such as alcohol and mental health. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:
19 minutes ago, toshiba said:

What am I vocal about?

Let's start with this comment from last May

Quote

Repeal the 2nd amendment for starters

 

I've been discussing the alcohol problem for over 5 years. I've pointed out the deaths caused by alcohol and more recently posted about the role that alcohol plays in violent crimes. 

It's obvious that some people just want to gun regulation for the sake of gun regulation. They don't want to look at the underlying causes of gun violence such as alcohol and mental health. 

Wait in the gun thread I call for those products to be dealt with.  I would call for the same thing here.

 

BUT: My hope for repeal the 2nd amendment isn't about banning, it is about removing the biggest obstacle of regulation.  Repealing the 2nd isn't analogous with repeal.

Share this post


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

Wait in the gun thread I call for those products to be dealt with.  I would call for the same thing here.

 

BUT: My hope for repeal the 2nd amendment isn't about banning, it is about removing the biggest obstacle of regulation.  Repealing the 2nd isn't analogous with repeal.

How many posts do you have in regards to wanting gun regulation?

How many posts do you have in regards to wanting more alcohol regulation?

Do the stats that I posted about the correlation between alcohol and violent crimes concern you? What do you suggest we do about it?

Share this post


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

Wait in the gun thread I call for those products to be dealt with.  I would call for the same thing here.

 

BUT: My hope for repeal the 2nd amendment isn't about banning, it is about removing the biggest obstacle of regulation.  Repealing the 2nd isn't analogous with repeal.

How many posts do you have in regards to wanting gun regulation?

How many posts do you have in regards to wanting more alcohol regulation?

Do the stats that I posted about the correlation between alcohol and violent crimes concern you? What do you suggest we do about it?

I have very many posts about gun regulation, because the gun thread is an old one.

I don't have many on alcohol regulation, but I am in this thread now (Doesn't seem like an old thread).

I suggest we hold the manufacturers, distributors and users of these products liable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KCitons said:

That's not really in depth or all that helpful.  There are generalizations in there like "reported being under the influence before X".  Is that 1 or 2 drinks?  16?   It said "many" inmates were over 3x the legal limit.  Is that 5%, 60%, what?

Another think I would be curious about is how many are repeat offenders and have they always commited the crimes while under the influence?  If somebody is in for their 3rd assault charge, but only 1 time were they drinking - isn't that a problem with them, not a problem with booze?   

I am not denying there is some correlation, but that's not always causation.  

 

Share this post


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

We still pretending that we can't address both problems and have stricter regulation for both in here?  

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. 

Share this post


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

That's not really in depth or all that helpful.  There are generalizations in there like "reported being under the influence before X".  Is that 1 or 2 drinks?  16?   It said "many" inmates were over 3x the legal limit.  Is that 5%, 60%, what?

Another think I would be curious about is how many are repeat offenders and have they always commited the crimes while under the influence?  If somebody is in for their 3rd assault charge, but only 1 time were they drinking - isn't that a problem with them, not a problem with booze?   

I am not denying there is some correlation, but that's not always causation.  

 

Go ahead and do your own research and see if you can refute the relation between alcohol and violence. Once you're done with that, take a look at all the other problems that alcohol causes that aren't related to violence. 

At least guns only have one purpose. And one negative result. 

Share this post


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

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

Who is pretending this? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Go ahead and do your own research and see if you can refute the relation between alcohol and violence. Once you're done with that, take a look at all the other problems that alcohol causes that aren't related to violence. 

At least guns only have one purpose. And one negative result. 

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am definitely not smart enough to process this whole article HERE, but this was the intro:

Strategies to prevent firearm violence that focus only on the firearms themselves, as a modifiable target for intervention, are often delayed because of political and implementation challenges (1, 2). Although the misuse of firearms is necessary to the occurrence of firearm violence, there also are other contributing but modifiable factors that might be more feasibly changed to prevent firearm violence (3, 4).

Alcohol is one such key modifiable factor that has been repeatedly connected to firearm violence. People may place themselves or others at risk of gun violence by inappropriately consuming alcohol in situations where firearms are present. People may also place themselves or others at risk of gun violence by entering environments where alcohol is being consumed and where guns are present (3, 4). Moreover, exposure to both inappropriate alcohol consumption and gun use may, at times, be unavoidable or unbeknownst to those at risk because of ambient structural or circumstantial conditions, such as addiction or poverty.

Despite these possibilities, it is also possible that alcohol may not be as strongly related to firearm violence as expected. In the United States, a majority of the population does not abstain from alcohol consumption and, by extension, there are a great many instances of drinking where no firearm violence occurs. According to the 2013 US National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), around 71% of adults aged 18 years or older drank alcohol in the prior year and around 56% in the prior month (5). Also, although alcohol could be a relatively straightforward factor to modify compared with firearm use, doing so may only be complementary to more direct efforts focused on firearm use, and modifying alcohol misuse as a behavior also has its own implementation challenges. Even with significant investments in prevention and treatment efforts, a nontrivial number of people (7.2% of adults aged 18 years or older in the United States in 2012) continue to suffer from alcohol addictions or alcohol use disorders (6).

Alcohol consumption is thus best viewed as a contributing, although not necessary, factor in the occurrence of firearm violence. The scientific evidence base focused on alcohol and firearm violence has yet to be fully audited in disentangling and determining the strength of this connection, as well as the importance of alcohol, as a modifiable risk factor in the prevention of firearm misuse and injury. Because this scientific evidence base has not heretofore been assembled, changes to alcohol policies in order to prevent firearm violence have been very limited. Communities interested in pursuing alcohol-related prevention strategies to reduce firearm violence are left with little guidance in terms of which strategies might be best to implement. We thus undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of the scientific literature in order to synthesize the existing evidence base on alcohol and firearm violence. We identified gaps in knowledge, sought to elucidate modifiable factors or public health interventions, and offer information of value to local communities in making the best use of limited resources in pursuing alcohol policies and prevention strategies with robust evidence behind them.

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.