The main difference is that most alcohol-related deaths are self-inflicted. The big exception is when people intoxicated on alcohol drive and there are laws that strictly prohibit that.
Guns, on the other hand, make it much easier for one person to kill another person. So the latter does have an interest in whether the former is armed. Guns are not just an individual issue, they are a social issue as well. People who don’t own guns personally are still affected by the gun ownership of others. Those of us who are the potential targets of gunfire feel we should have a say in gun policy.
Cite? My own guess is that many alcohol related deaths are inflicted on innocents by people drinking. If you have stats to the contrary I’d be interested in seeing em.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but from memory there are laws against shooting someone with a gun as well. People however being people they sometimes break those laws…or sometimes they abuse the item in question such that even though they didn’t break a law someone still gets hurt. No?
To be sure…so do knives, axes, and any number of things. And alcohol makes it much easier to inadvertently kill someone as well, right? That was the argument used by the prohibitionists when they wanted to ban strong drink in the US…that and many of the other arguments used by the anti-gun crowd. The thing is, this is a matter of who’s ox is gored as to what should or shouldn’t be banned…for the good of the people of course.
Well, again, a LOT of things aren’t just individual issues, but become social issues in context. Like alcohol. My take is that’s what laws are for. We set up laws such that if someone does abuse something and harms others then we have a recourse to deal with them. I actually think that we aren’t hard enough on those who abuse alcohol…but that’s another debate. The point is that society isn’t there to (attempt to) protect everyone from everything…only to set out guide lines for what is or isn’t acceptable and then adults figure out what they will do within those guide lines. Fuck up and the book (should) be tossed at you…don’t and you should be treated like, you know, an adult.
I read the other day that a woman and her 3 or 4 kids (I don’t recall which) were killed by a drunk driver. The kids and the woman weren’t drinking…yet they were certainly still effected by the guy who was. That’s life. It’s tragic and I wept for the survivors and for the deaths of the little one’s…but I have no desire to go forth and ban all alcohol. My desire is for laws that are more punishing to those who DO break the law (IIRC the guy had been stopped before for drunk driving).
Well, a couple of things here. First off we DO have a gun policy…in fact, we have several fairly restrictive gun policies depending on where you live. Secondly you are many times more likely to be killed by any number of things than you are by a gun, even if you are in a high risk group like a gang. If you aren’t in a high risk group the probability goes down even further. So…we have policies in place (and I’m not opposed to a re-look at them if they have issues or problems btw) and you are essentially worrying about your teeth not being white enough while smoking 3 packs a day. No?
You can’t legislate morality and you’re trying to maneuver the debate away from brokering a compromise towards solving the gun issue and back towards muddying the waters. The difference is that alcohol doesn’t kill people. Alcohol wasn’t designed to kill people, and in my eyes, I’d like to lower the drinking age.
Well, no shit on the last paragraph. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say there are two kinds of guns: handguns and rifles. Yes, you’re giving something up by allowing us to outlaw all handguns. However, you’re getting all those other scary looking guns you’ve wanted. Not only that, but the debate is solved. Apparently it’s not worth making a concession to have the debate solved. Everything you asked for (for the most part) I’ve been fine with. So sack up, keep coming up with other things you want, and come up with a solution.
What about alcohol and gun related deaths, where someone gets drunk and shoots someone?
Three kinds, too. Accidental (I was drunk and cleaning the gun), purposeful (Bitch was cheating on me!), and hunting incident (So I was out in the field with Billy and we were tossing a few back and we saw a flash of white. How did we know it was Ms. Adams doing the washing?)
Well… except for the fact that, you know, you would, at a stroke, outlaw all existing guns.
Also, it’s really not technically simple or foolproof to trace the ammo. Sure, you can trace it to the gun… unless, say, it’s my shotgun. No ballistic tests for buckshot. And you can identify where it was manufactured…
…
unless, say, the guy made it in his basement. It’s what most serious shooters do. More reliable loads, and a considerable cost savings.
Alcohol was designed to lower inhibitions and impair judgment. That’s a fuckload more dangerous than anything else I can think of.
LOUNE, here’s the hint: We’re not going to allow you to posit, “First, we repeal the Second Amendment.” I don’t want those ‘scary guns’. Well, I wouldn’t mind firing a couple off, but I don’t really have any urge to own one. (I also want to shoot a tank gun, a field piece, and just about anything I can get my hands on. Gonna go to a theme park some time to do it one day.) But the point is, you’re saying something that sounds reasonable to you, but really, comes from the same standpoint as, ‘So, what if we outlaw speaking in a negative fashion about politicians? We’ll let you say ‘Fuck’ on TV!’
So… we got any dopers up in the Chicago area that shoot?
Right now, this very moment, I can legally carry a handgun openly or concealed per the law where I live, with only a very few restrictions that come from the federal level. You’re all about me giving that up. You haven’t addressed whether, in return, I get to carry a select-fire long gun free from legal hassles. We keep hearing about compromise from you, but everything you want to “give” us is something we already have.
It will never be solved. For the sake of having a discussion, I have submitted compromise proposals. That’s the extent of it.
The reality is this: gun owners have a Supreme Court decision, hundreds of years of private gun ownership, and a failed gun ban in our back pockets. There isn’t any need for us to compromise. If you think that you can get a ban on handguns pushed through Congress and signed by the President, by all means have a stab at it. That’s the only way it’s going to happen.
When you do, though, expect the mother of all filibusters. While you’re at it, realize that any gains the Democrats made in the Congress this election will be gone in the next one. It’s one thing to pass the AWB. A bullshit ban on cosmetics is fairly easy to deal with- take off the scary bayonet lug and affix a fixed stock and you’re good to go, no retooling required. Of course, you and I both know that such a ban is bullshit for that very reason, you saw it with your own eyes for 10 years. If it makes you “feel better”, have at it, but realize that it will be exactly that, a feeling and nothing more. But with regard to handguns, you will not be able to pass a ban on an entire class of guns, no matter how much you hate them.
You keep hammering on this like it’s an option. It’s not, not even in this hypothetical. There is no negotiation. It is a non-starter. You can waste another 20 posts trying to wheedle some concession on this with your everybody-has-a-price-why-aren’t-you-flexible routine, but one is not forthcoming. Handguns are a fact, and you need to come to grips with that.
When we found we had a horrible death rate in autos ,we took measures to make them safer. We used to have protruding knobs on radios that entered skulls and eyes during relatively minor accidents. The auto companies screamed fixing them would break them. We fixed them. We added seat belts. Then we went to air bags. When we find a car is unsafe like the Corvair or the gas tanks blew up on Fords. we fixed them. Cars are safer. They can not be made perfect because many people drive emotionally . People drive drunk and use cell phones. But we do have laws against such actions. That is good.
We also have laws against pointing guns at people and pulling the trigger. Guns are pretty safe, these days. Much safer than they used to be. Mostly through improvements in gunpowder, and improved design.
Still, people still drive Corvairs. There’s one down the road from me. They’re not unsafe at all, provided you remember that the front tires and rear tires have to be at different air pressures.
Really? I always thought it was a commonly accepted fact.
According to this site, “More than 100,000 U.S. deaths are caused by excessive alcohol consumption each year. Direct and indirect causes of death include drunk driving, cirrhosis of the liver, falls, cancer, and stroke.” It also says that “impaired drivers continue to kill someone every 30 minutes, nearly 50 people a day, and almost 18,000 citizens a year.” So it appears that only 18% of alcohol-related deaths are due to drunk driving accidents. And obviously, a good percentage of those drunk driving casualties were the drunk people themselves, which would fall back into the category of self-inflicted deaths. If we assume 50% of the drunk driving casualties were drunk, then the overall statistics are that 91% of alcohol-related deaths are self-inflicted.
Gun registration. Register your firearm and get grandfathered in. The gun registration cannot be used to track down or confiscate the gun if the particular type is ever banned.
This should be transferable if the gun is ever sold, inherited or otherwise given away, unless sold to a felon or other person not legally able to own the weapon.
Similar to cars. If they are stolen they can be tracked and returned to the owner. Guns of someone who is arrested can be checked to see if they are legally owned. If not, then there are additional penalties that can be imposed. Guns left at the scene of a robbery can be tracked back to the last registered owner.
I don’t believe I ever said a thing about getting rid of the Second Amendment Actually, I’m pretty damn sure I said I didn’t want to do that. You can have the scary guns, just no handguns.
Really? Alcohol is inherently more dangerous than guns? Alcohol is designed to get you drunk. Guns are designed to kill.
No, the courts have ruled that Criminals can not be required to register their guns.
"*Another fact Americans need to understand is that registration is directed to law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Not only do convicted criminals by definition fail to obey the law, but they are constitutionally protected against any registration requirement. In Haynes vs. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled 7-1 that compelling registration by those who may not lawfully possess firearms amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s proscription against forced self-incrimination. In other words, the court said that if someone “realistically can expect that registration [of a firearm] will substantially increase the likelihood of his prosecution,” the registration requirement is unconstitutional.
Astonishingly as it may sound, some courts have ruled that registration of firearms only applies to lawful citizens, not to felons. This has been pointed out by Legal scholar Don B. Kates in “Firearms and Violence - Issues of Public Policy” (1984; pp. 14-21) mentioning, for example, the Kastigar vs. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) decision. Does exemption of felons from gun registration sound irrational? It certainly does! Were gun registration to be implemented in the United States, criminals and felons could very well not be expected to register their weapons, since they are already felons proscribed from legally owning firearms. Requiring them to register their guns, some courts may opine, would necessarily incriminate them, and this would violate their Fifth Amendment rights."*