Ban all alcohol, or severely limit its use.
The cites are posted upthread. Put simply: 100,000 deaths per year due to alcohol, with 67% of the population having at least 1 drink annually.
30,000 deaths from guns, with 30% of households owning a gun.
Unless you get a call from your friend who asks you to come downtown and shoot some pool.
Similarly, sitting at home watching TV with a gun on the nightstand is not particularly dangerous either. Unless you hear a funny noise from the garage and take the gun to investigate.
Alcohol use rates and gun ownership rates seem the appropriate rates to compare to me, as opposed to comparing some arbitrary metric of danger from “1 drink” and “1 gun”. You may disagree. I don’t care to argue it further.
Alcohol use puts you into a state of heightened risk. Gun ownership is a perpetual state of heightened risk. Really, by this argument, guns are much safer, since people own guns 24/7 but they only use alcohol a few hours per week or something.
Yes, there is a difference between guns and alcohol, I have admitted this. That does not make it a bad analogy. Analogies are not perfect. That is the whole idea of an analogy, as opposed to an equivalency.
If you are trying to argue that the reason for the differing public reaction between alcohol and guns is that alcohol makes you kill people for no reason and guns make it easier for you to kill people for a lousy reason, that’s fine. I’m not particularly convinced, but I accept your position.
But I am not interested in dealing with any more whining along the lines of “the analogy is invalid because guns are not absolutely identical to alcohol and 1 gun is more dangerous than 1 drink”.
Just so that this is not left unanswered:
The 41,000 alcohol figure excludes people who killed themselves “intentionally” by drinking enough to cause a chronic, fatal disease. It includes people who accidentally killed themselves or killed others as a result of consuming alcohol.
Similarly, the 13,000 gun figure excludes people who killed themselves intentionally by deliberately shooting themselves. It includes people who accidentally killed themselves or killed others with a gun.
A quick search on Google suggests that roughly half of all murders in the US (~17,000 annually) involved alcohol. Obviously, some fraction of those involved a gun as well. This suggests that an effective method for reducing gun violence would be restricting alcohol! And vice-versa, obviously.
Don’t you dare take alcohol away from me. Being drunk is what inspired the founding fathers (at least the second amendment anyway). You can take my alcohol away from me when you pry it from my dead lips. I want to sponsor an amendment preventing a simple majority of Americans making any laws regulating the use and possession of alcohol. Then I am going to create a special interest group with sponsorship from brewers and distillers to make sure no one can get elected who does not share my view on this one topic.
Hey OP: did I miss any part of the lame analogy?
That’s not how you would calculate risk. Particularly when the things you are looking at have such different risk profiles. If you are gonna compare two things, you would need to do it based on the same standard. In this case, the logical one would be relative risk of use, meaning how likely is something bad to happen when you use alcohol vs. a gun. You can’t just look at ownership as it is the use that causes risk. Yes, the risk doesn’t VARY with use in the same ways it does with alcohol, but that is the right standard because mere ownership of a gun, a bottle of booze, a gram of heroin, a grenade, or anything else doesn’t necessarily cause problems. It’s the ability, desire, and likely consequences of use that cause issues.
I’m glad you don’t want to argue the point seeing as what you are saying is completely nonsensical.
It makes it a bad analogy because the two things are not really comparable. Additionally, your OP, riddled with errors and distortions, only exacerbated the problem of comparing how we regulate one vs. the other.
That is one issue, but the larger points are that people are not soulless automatons only interested in statistics and numbers, and that people general feel we make more of an effort to regulate alcohol than we do guns.
Then don’t make a poor comparison. I didn’t seek to compare the two, you did. If you were actually interesting in discussing gun control policy rather than trying to play gotcha, everyone would have been much better off. More importantly, if you are interested in having real discussion, try answering any of the points made. For example:
-
Your complete ignorance about the plethora of laws regulating alcohol and not guns.
-
The fundamental differences between the two that would make regulations situation specific.
-
That you have conflated the dangers of alcohol overuse and drunk driving several times, and failed to differentiate between the two wrt risk.
-
That you are deliberately misstating relevant statistics, including the number of “drunk driving deaths” because those numbers are not a measurement of how many deaths are caused by alcohol. According to the NHTSA that number is defined as follows:
Not true. If you’ve been stopped for drunk driving - just drunk driving, not killing anyone or causing other major damage - you will, if you are found guilty and if it is your first offense, be sentenced to three weeks in prison and have your license suspended for, if I remember right, six months. If you can show that imprisonment will be a serious hardship, the judge might take pity on you and allow you to pay a fine that can be up to two months’ income.
Choosing a designated driver or finding another alternative to driving home is taken pretty seriously here.
Different things should be regulated in different ways. We should not resort to “one size fits all” policies.
Also, no one is proposing an age limit of 35 for gun ownership.
I think one thing that would help with drunk driving would be to extend night club hours past 2 am.
I haven’t read the thread, but there already exists a technical solution for that. In the Netherlands it is called an Alcohol-Lock and judges have already mandated the installation of one in the car of someone convicted of drunk driving. Basically, it is an alcohol breath meter electronically linked to the cars ingnition. You have to breathe with alcohol free breath in the pipe to get your car to start. Ifyou’'ve had more then the number of allowed drinks, your car won’t start. Of course there are ways around it, but it is a formidable hurdle for someone who is already drunk.
Another solution is the drug called antabuse.. Let drivers who want to keep their licence report to someone who makes sure they take a tablet of antabuse every two weeks and they will have a very strong incentive to stay sober, so, not drink and drive.
All of these solutions don’t take liberties away from those who are not drunk drivers, and they target the actual problem.
Get back to me if there are such easy solutions for fire arm abuse. Oh wait; I’ve found one.
Here’‘s a cite for the use of alcohol locks in the Netherlands. Apparently, it’'s been done here for a year now.
An alcolock apparently costs about 500 bucks to install. Seems like a bargain, compared to jailing costs (for society) or the cost of a revoked drivers licence (for those convited of a DUI).
If you google “alcolock”" you find the latest info on them.
Eh, I don’t know. Every day as I wait for my bus, some idiot shows up and sprays the crowd with deadly particles of secondhand cigarette smoke. The fact that there’s a time delay before the onset of cancer doesn’t mean it’s less deadly.
As far as I know, there is no scientific proof that there is any harm from smelling smoke in an open ventilated area.
They’re generically known as ignition interlocks here.
If you define “using a gun” as “having a gun and ammunition readily accessible”, I would agree with you. If you define “using” a gun as actively shooting it, that is absurd. The whole risk we are concerned about regarding guns is the risk that they will be used to shoot someone! This risk is present at all times you own the gun, even if you are not actively firing it!
Let me put it another way. I am interested in comparing the relative danger to yourself and others from two “risk factors”:
-
Ownership or access to a gun.
-
Regular consumption of alcohol.
This is simply a statistical question, like would be carried about any life insurance company, and regardless of whether it is the right question to ask in your opinion, it has a definite answer. Now, it would help my understanding of your position if you would explain the two risk factors you consider more appropriate.
I do apologize, I had a little bit too much fun with the OP and, as stated above, I did not originally expect it to turn into something I was interested in a serious discussion about.
People may feel that. My claim is that this is simply evidence of their biased thinking. “Oh, alcohol is harmless in moderation, we already do enough to regulate it.” vs “Guns are terrible, evil, etc., they need to be locked down more”, when in fact alcohol causes a comparable amount of harm.
There are a plethora of laws regulating both alcohol and guns, and I am well aware of both of them. I don’t know what I could have said in this thread that makes you think I am completely ignorant of alcohol regulation. My point is that it could be regulated much more strictly than it currently is, just as guns could be. The fact that some regulation currently exists for guns doesn’t stop anyone from crying for more.
I’ve already been over this. The fundamental difference is that guns make it easier to kill on purpose and alcohol makes it more likely you will kill by accident. This is a valid point and I’ve acknowledged that several times. Are there any other fundamental differences I have missed?
I have preferred to use the most general statistics available, because the more specific you get, the more the nitpickers come out of the woodwork and complain that the specific statistics are not exactly analogous. I have tried to use conservative statistics where possible, and when people have complained about some inconsistency in the statistics I’ve used, I’ve attempted to address that and explain that my analogy still holds.
In two other threads on this board, anti-gun types have unhappily proclaimed that 70% of the US population owns a gun, and no one has challenged them. I don’t where this number came from, but it would certainly help my position. I have not attempted to find the most outrageous numbers that support my position.
There are really two sets of statistics I am interested in. If you have a source for these statistics that I do not know about, I would like to hear about it.
-
Total deaths caused by guns vs. total deaths caused by alcohol.
-
Total deaths of innocent people caused by guns vs. total deaths caused by alcohol.
Unfortunately, no such statistics are available, so I’ve done the best with what I could find. We can argue statistics all day. I have not seen anything that disproves my point that the total number of deaths caused by guns and alcohol (regardless of what sub-divisions you are including or excluding) are roughly comparable.
Yes, this is correct, and while I have tried to use the term “alcohol-related” wherever possible, I may have occasionally slipped and said that alcohol “caused” these deaths. Mea culpa.
But by the same token, the statistics on gun deaths simply include all deaths in which a gun was involved, and do not consider whether the death would have occurred if a gun were not available. So while both sets of statistics are not quite what I’m looking for, they both share the same inaccuracy.
Wrong. This is why when you get home insurance, and you own a gun, they care not only about that, but risk factors which would increase the likelihood it would be used or stolen. Regardless, my point was not that you can can’t ever calculate risk of ownership, it’s that risk of ownership vs. risk of negative consequences from over consumption are not really comparable.
See above. An insurance company only cares how much potential liability they are exposing themselves to. That’s why they would not care if you own an inoperable civil war musket beyond the cost of replacing the item if stolen. They care if the item will be USED. Factors that influence that would be the crime rate in your neighborhood, whether you lock your gun, etc.
On your second point, I am not sure why you find this so complicated. The correct comparison would be comparing the rate of negative consequences that come from collective gun USE, vs. alcohol USE. Your example is like comparing living in a ski resort town and skydiving, when what you are really care about is how often those skiers actually ski since it’s skiing (the activity) that’s dangerous. Yeah, you could probably find numbers, but they are not comparing like things.
Honestly, you couldn’t foresee that making a terrible analogy, not rooted in fact or logic, to poke fun at people who may be overreacting to a tragedy where 20 children were murdered would be ill-received? Really?
Please show me ONE person who espouses both those views? And again, you are conflating multiple issues again. Are you worried about people drinking themselves to death, or drunk driving?
Besides, it’s not biased thinking. There are multiple studies that show moderate drinking is harmless, and in some cases, can be beneficial.
When you make suggestions in your OP that we should restrict gun ownership to those over 35 when that has not been suggested by anyone, no is it a law restricting alcohol use on those lines, I have to think you are either saying it to get a rise out of people, or you have no idea about how many laws we have to prevent the negative events that tend to arise form alcohol abuse.
It could. So could murder and rape. But stricter laws don’t always result in better outcomes in aggregate as evidenced by our drug laws. Most rational people see that laws governing alcohol are pretty effective. I know few people who think the same about gun laws.
People don’t generally break into houses to steal alcohol. People don’t typically try to kill themselves with alcohol. Numerous criminal enterprises don’t rely on alcohol to continue committing crimes. People don’t fight wars using bottles of alcohol. etc. etc. And it’s not as if I needed to add to your list as that distinction is more than enough to render the comparison useless.
So what if “someone” claimed that. They are wrong. I am not claiming you are trying to cherry pick data to serve your point, I am saying you are either too lazy or disinterested to understand what the numbers you are using really indicate.
That’s not how it works. You need to PROVE your point. Just positing something that is difficult to falsify doesn’t make it true.
And you consider these issues to be the same? Are you even reading what you write? How would ANYONE know what would happen under some counter-factual where there was no gun? That is not at all like recognizing that the numbers you cite for alcohol are, by definition, not positing that alcohol CAUSED all of those deaths; yet you acted as though it did. This is in their definition, it’s is not some leap of faith.
This is unbelievable. If gun use had anything to do with risk whatsoever, as opposed to gun ownership, then we would have people calling for laws that limited gun use, as opposed to limiting gun ownership. But anyone can see that that would do jack shit for gun crime. If, instead of banning handguns for example, we simply restricted handguns to being “used” no more frequently than once per month, do you think that would have any effect on crime whatso-fucking-ever?
Of course not, because handgun ownership is what poses a risk, and someone who goes and “uses” their handgun at the shooting range more often than average doesn’t pose any additional risk to anyone! When considering the risk of gun crime, how often a gun is “used” has nothing to do with anything, because legal use of guns and illegal use of guns are completely orthogonal, whereas legal and illegal use of alcohol are not!
Well, I don’t view it as a terrible analogy…
Oh, for fuck’s sake! Everyone in this fucking THREAD except for 1 or 2 people espouses both views!
It doesn’t matter! The analogy holds regardless of what specific set of statistics you look at, as I have explained repeatedly and at length.
Yes, and responsible gun ownership by level-headed people is also harmless and can be beneficial. The very fact that you view this as a difference is simply evidence of your bias, because it just one more of the many ways in which they are the same.
Someone did suggest a very high age limit on guns somewhere on this board using language very similar to what I used.
That’s exactly the whole goddamn point of this thread.
Well, for the first two, actually, yes they do.
Since the only point I’m trying to make is that the rates are roughly equivalent, not exactly the same, I’ve already proved it.
Similarly, how can ANYONE know what would happen under some counter-factual where was no alcohol? The statistics I used are the best available.
Yes, I have occasionally said that both the gun and alcohol statistics reflected deaths caused by guns and alcohol, when in fact the statistics were merely deaths related to guns and alcohol. I got carried away, sorry! This is the best data there is to work with.
Ideally, we would compare statistics for the deaths directly caused by guns and alcohol, that would not have occurred if these were not available. These statistics do not exist, so all anyone can do is look at statistics for deaths related to guns and alcohol. Are you saying it is impossible to draw any conclusions for this reason?
With a loaded firearm I can kill a number of people deliberately without needing to be in close proximity to them.
I can’t do that with a can of beer or a cigarette.
This analogy makes me want to get drunk.
That’s not what I’m comparing. I’m comparing “risk of negative consequences from ownership” with “risk of negative consequences from consumption”. The only salient difference is that you own guns, and you consume alcohol.
Absolutely not. The flaw in your argument is that unlike skiing and skydiving, using a gun is not dangerous. I can shoot at the range all day long without increasing my risk of committing a crime once iota compared to sitting on my couch. I am still just as likely to shoot someone the next day in anger or for revenge or whatever as I ever was. Gun crime is uncorrelated with legal use of guns, which is why it is meaningless to use legal use of guns as any kind of risk factor in assessing the likelihood of gun crime.
It is perfectly valid, for instance, to compare the risks of skydiving, and the risks of living next to an active volcano. These are both directly related to a defined danger, despite being totally different types of risk. Despite being totally different things and not at all similar, you can still legitimately ask “Am in greater danger if I decide to take up skydiving weekly or decide to move next to a volcano”? And if those are your two choices, that is the most reasonable question to ask.
Buying a gun is like moving next to a volcano. You can’t predict what will cause it to “erupt” or when (i.e. what will cause you to commit a gun crime, or commit suicide), and the eruption is totally uncorrelated with how often you go hiking on the side of the volcano (i.e. use the gun for recreation).
Drinking alcohol is like going skydiving. Every time you do it, there is some small chance of a negative consequence, and this chance is inseparable from the skydiving.
You “use” skydiving. You “own” your house next to the volcano.
Similarly, you “use” alcohol. You “own” the gun. Therefore, it is appropriate to compare alcohol use rates, and gun ownership rates.
The alternative to the OP’s hypothesis is laws regulating anything don’t work, in which case why have them at all.