That’s a good point. Why do we even have different states or different countries with different laws? Obviously there is just 1 optimal set of universal laws and 1 optimal way to run a society, and we should all just do that. The people who live in Wyoming should be subject to exactly the same laws as the people that live in Denmark.
So let’s try this from the other end. If you’re shot, then the immediate cause of death is the firearm. If you’re run over, the immediate cause of death is the car that ran you over. It’s not alcohol that enables the driver to kill you; hence, it’s not alcohol that needs to be regulated (in the same way, at least; there are reasons for regulating alcohol, but they’re not comparable to those for regulating firearms).
Alcohol does not put you in a position where your powers of killing others are increased; quite to the contrary. Firearms do. Cars do, too.
Yes, that’s why there’s no way to increase justice or fairness in a given society, because obviously, everything always already works optimally, and there’s no possibility for comparison across different nations.
So you agree. The only law you will support to do something about gun deaths is to get rid of guns. The people who @Gyrate is talking about are absolutely correct.
Come on now, that’s almost hyperbolically disingenuous. I said, pick any country at random. For that to entail that all guns are banned, you’d have to show that every country except the US bans all guns. Is that a position you want to argue?
All of these arguments claiming that deaths from guns are worse than the same number of deaths from other sources because of some kind of perceived difference in how easy it was to cause the death seem to be actually making the opposite point you think you are.
If guns are just so evil and dangerous and perpetually just a FINGER TWITCH away from killing everyone in sight, and alcohol is just a happy social lubricant and innocent tasty beverage by comparison, then why does alcohol cause 3x the number of deaths per year as firearms do?
Ok, that’s the hair you’re going to split. Sure I’m sure there is some difference in your mind between removing 99% of guns and access and 100%.
Cite that all countries except the US remove 99% of guns?
Okay, and if you proposed to try to eliminate drunk driving deaths by banning cars, I’d be opposed to that too…not sure how this helps your point?
Nobody’s saying that gun deaths are worse. The point is that regulations need to attach at the point of the instrument that enables people to exert power over the life of others, because such power should not be unrestricted. Alcohol, as such, does not give you this power; guns do. All deaths are equally bad, but the strategy to prevent them needs to fit the means by which they are caused.
I did read the whole thread and I’d thank you not to make wild accusations about my intent. If we are talking about all firearms then the pistol example is relevant. Stolen firearms definitely ARE used in crimes and in murders. Rifles in general are used in fewer crimes than pistols, so it follows that stolen pistols would be used in more crimes then stolen rifles.
The discussion was about how secure firearms are; it was brought up that most gun safes can be easily dismantled with a simple crowbar, for example. That applies just as much to pistols as rifles, and you making a huge distinction between the two is not productive to this debate.
And you are the one who made the huge distinction between rifles and pistols even though in this context there really isn’t a difference between them - they’re both deadly weapons that people leave laying around where they think they’re secured, and they are too often wrong about that.
That is the gist of the argument this page makes:
Because a lot more people consume alcohol a lot more often than they use guns. That’s very basic stats.
Well, joke’s on me for believing there’s some lows gun fanatics won’t stoop to, I guess.
Oh, I’m sorry when I rectally derived a number I was off by 5% the UK had 5.8% of the guns per capita as the US. Is that different than all? Not noticeably.
Also, to hit on this point - it has nothing to do with whether the deaths were “easy” to cause or not, or whether they are “worse”. Every death is bad. Some deaths are easily preventable (gun deaths can be prevented at the low cost of not having guns), others are tougher (car deaths would require some draconian controls on people’s free movement, and our society and economy is built on free movement) or have an unacceptable cost (we could avoid all WWII deaths if we just surrender to Hitler!). Some we can’t really do anything about yet (old age, some diseases).
These equations depend on the situation, they aren’t universal. If the only way to survive was to hunt and gather, or we had to hold off zombie hordes every so often, then guns in everyday life would be justified, even if people occasionally used them to shoot one another or themselves once in a while.
By that same token, if we invent and implement self driving cars, we could make driving illegal and eliminate traffic deaths without restricting people’s ability to get around, and that’s 100% what we should do as soon as it is a realistic possibility. And much as I myself enjoy driving, when that day comes, I will 100% oppose anyone who makes the argument that they LIKE driving and it’s their RIGHT to do so, no matter how many people die as a result, doggone it!
Is that because 95% of guns were seized by the government when they implemented their current gun control laws, because their culture just spawns far fewer gun nuts, or because there are fewer people with legitimate need for guns?
Don’t forget that only 20% of American adults own guns, and that 3% of American adults own half of all guns (130+ million)
Their average arsenal is a staggering 17 guns, which seems to me like 15 more than you can fire, 16 more than you can fire well, and 17 more than you actually need.
So you wouldn’t prefer a US that had 95% fewer guns?
So it’s not the 100% you claimed first, nor the 99% you backpedalled to, and of course, the UK isn’t every other country except the US. So basically, nothing you said holds up, but you’re still right, yes?