To put this another way: alcohol use is correlated with danger. Gun use is not. Therefore, one cannot compare the relative dangers of alcohol and guns by comparing their use.
If the average person goes to a bar and has 1 drink, they are not much danger to anyone. If they go to a bar and have 5 drinks, they are certainly a bit more of a danger that they will eventually, inadvertently, kill themselves or others without intending to. This increased danger is inseparable from use - if you use more alcohol, the danger is greater.
If the average person goes to a shooting range and fires 1 shot, or uses 1 gun, they’re not much of a danger to anyone. If they to go a shooting range and fire 100 shots from 10 guns, they’re still not much of a danger to anyone, and certainly no more of a danger than if they had only fired 1 shot. They’re just more enthusiastic, or have more spare cash. The danger from the gun owner comes from the fact that, at any time they want, they can use a gun exactly once and kill someone intentionally. This danger is totally unrelated to how often they use the gun in general.
Absolute, I am genuinely impressed that you have come around to elucidating yourself an important difference between the two.
And, while I agree with every counterpoint that others have made to your analogy, I do admit that the fact that twice as many people enjoy alcohol as enjoy guns, and that nearly everyone drives, is one factor in the differences (which, nonetheless, you exaggerate) in public outcry for more regulation.
(I don’t think many Americans or Dopers are calling for an outright ban on guns, though… You were mistaken about that.)
I don’t think your analogy breaks down here. Sure, a previously law abiding and responsible gun owner COULD decide to go kill a random person on the street.
Likewise a previously responsible drinker COULD decide to drink a half-gallon of whiskey and drive his car.
Neither are very likely.
I believe it all comes down to: Hey, wait a minute, I like to drink and do so responsibly. Don’t mess with my fun! I don’t own guns, however, so I don’t understand that culture. Regulate/ban the hell out of them.
What important difference are you referring to? The fact that alcohol gets more dangerous the more you use it and guns do not? I do not see that as especially salient.
Statistically, the number of gun-related deaths per gun owner and alcohol-related deaths per alcohol user is almost the same, even if you use the alternative statistics cited upthread. Irresponsible gun owners with poor self-control kill people, irresponsible alcohol users with poor self-control kill people. And at approximately the same rate.
Yes, the people killing others with guns generally had something resembling a reason, while the alcohol users were generally just feckless, irresponsible jackasses. Is that the difference you’re referring to?
The study referred to in the CNN article says that about 20% of US residents own a gun. Data on alcohol consumption says that about 67% of US residents have had alcohol in the past year.
The latter is nearly three and a half times greater than the former.
As I said upthread, I don’t think the families of the tens of thousands of people killed by other people’s alcohol use each year are all that comforted by the thought that their loved one died because of some random stranger’s negligence as opposed to some acquaintance’s anger.
If you are saying that people emotionally respond more strongly to guns because “guns are bad and scary” and alcoholics are just pathetic, well, I’ll grant you that. But hopefully people are not seriously suggesting we set public policy based on what they’re scared of as opposed to what they’re actually in danger of…
Conveniently, the per capita death rate from alcohol is 3x the per capita death rate from firearms. Sounds about right!
Even if 20% of US residents own a gun, whoever else shares their household has access to it, and many crimes (like the Newtown shooting) are committed with non-owned guns.
That 67% number includes people who had one drink in the past year at their office Christmas party. The poll it came from asked “Did you totally abstain from alcohol in the past year”. Many of the people who answered yes are not that into alcohol and contribute zilch to the statistics. By comparison, you have to be at least somewhat into guns to buy a gun. They cost a few hundred dollars. A single drink costs $4. A better gun question to compare against would be “have you fired or had regular access to a gun in the past year?”
So, your 67% number errs high, your 20% number errs low, but even ignoring those errors they are consistent with an equal risk from alcohol use and gun ownership, since gun deaths in the US are about 30,000 per year and alcohol-related deaths about 100,000 per year.
Simple: Put a breathalyzer on every car, and it won’t start if you blow past a certain percentage.
Also, since you are so obsessed with this concept to deflect the gun issue how about this: When we all have self-driving cars and drunk driving has been eradicated, THEN can we ban guns? Or are you just going to shift to another false equivalence? Because if its the latter, you better get it lined up. Google cars aren’t that far away.
At first I scoffed at The Truth’s approach for underage smoking, but I think it’s really working.
However here drunk driving is more a symptom of logistics than image. I think nearly everyone would take a safe alternative home if they had the option.
How many drunk driving convictions are in Manhattan every year, I bet it isn’t many.
I have already addressed this. However, I did not totally, clearly, explicitly say it in my previous post, so I will restate it again here.
As I said the last time you brought this up, 100,000 includes all deaths related to alcohol, including chronic diseases, and 30,000 includes all deaths related to guns, including suicide. The ratio is approximately 3.
If you wish to include only acute alcohol injuries in the alcohol figure, excluding the people who drank themselves to death, you are down to 41,000. And if you correspondingly exclude suicide from gun deaths, you’re down to around 13,000. What do you know. The ratio is still the same.
So if it is relevant to exclude suicides, does your alcohol death figure exclude people who killed themselves?
I’ve wasted far too much time with you on this. To everyone else, I’m giving up because this is obviously disingenuous bullshit. I guess everyone else was smarter than me in avoiding getting sucked into this vortex. I hope my posts have been of use to someone out there. Just don’t take my silence for assent.
I would like to see alchohol handled less as a criminal problem and more as a social problem. Once an alcoholic starts to drink he has no concept of consequences and could care less about jail time. A normal drinker just getting drunk may have some concept of this.
I would like to see a law passed that once someone was deemd an alcohilc and danger to others he would legaly be forbidden to drink. If caught with any booze in his system an automatic jail time of 72 hours at say $125.00 per day. No court, no trial, just 3 days jail. His wife might turn him in, his neighbors whoever if he gets caught drinking he gets 3 days in the jail. This would give him time to get past his obsession to drink and just might prevent him at least sometimes from taking the first drink. His drivers license should read no alcohol.
I’m guessing it’s because “Area man begins 15th year of 30-year plan to destroy own liver” wouldn’t be considered headline news anywhere but The Onion.
Err…, what’s the point then? For retribution, as opposed to deterrence? The first paragraph seems to take one AA-type view of alcoholism, the second a completely different personal failing viewpoint.
Also, putting a serious alcoholic in jail without booze may kill them.
Lurk, jail would not neccessarily be a deterrent in this case but more of a cheap storage facility until they sobered up and possibly got passed the obsession. The drunk cares about consequences before he drinks but once he has taken a drink it doesn’t make any difference. I have been with a serious alcholic now off and on for 17 years. Each time I check her into a hospital the bill has been a minumum $2,500. If I could legaly just chain her up for a few days I would do it. She is fine until she takes a drink and then all logic goes out the window. To date she has totaled over 27 cars and she will be getting her license back in about 6 months. After having over 10 lifetime DUI’s no one should ever get to drive again. I would make 3 the absolute limit. Drunks not only kill people in auto accidents, they beat innocent people, the assault children more often, they have a disease and they are a danger to society. A lot of them are good, intelligent and productive people until they drink.
It’s not a strange argument; it’s a substantive difference between alcohol and firearms that makes the comparison less that apt.
One drink is a perfectly reasonable and logical unit as it is the way people actually consume alcohol- one drink at a time.
Which is exactly what I stated before, and another reason why the comparison fails. The danger from guns comes from ownership rates. Which is doubly problematic because just owning a gun means you are more likely to have all sorts of bad things happen.
Yes, that is exactly the point. Hence, the goal to reduce gun availability and irresponsible ownership.