See post 50, certainly anyone who would outlaw currently legal guns/magazines who also posted in that everclear thread. I’d provide links but this forum requires a 2 minute wait between searches.
Then it will be trivial for you to name one.
So all you have to do is provide evidence that there are people who think that any and all alcohol is good and any and all guns are bad.
Not really, no, since risk is pretty complicated, and there are all sorts of other factors. I was merely pointing out that roughly, based on the numbers, that an individual is more likely to die or be injured due to alcohol than a gun (especially when you factor in how alcohol also contributes to a non-zero number of gun violence incidents)…and that this is counter intuitive to most people, who are very bad at even rough risk assessment, and assume that alcohol is mostly harmless while guns are wildly dangerous. I’m not addressing whether alcohol should be banned nor whether guns should be banned…nor even whether or not regulation is or isn’t a good idea. I’ve addressed those points in other threads, if you are interested in seeing what my actual stance is (I think it’s pretty moderate wrt regulation).
But the regulations only seem to affect gun related suicides, and people can commit suicides by other means. As shown in Australia where the prohibition of guns led to an increase in hangings.
Wait a minute. You made a specific claim. I asked you to cite your evidence. You provided it, but now you’re withdrawing it.
Do you retract your claim, then? If not, please provide your evidence for the statement:
Unless the increase in number of hangings exceeded the decrease in gun deaths, I would say it is still a good thing. Which cannot be said about banning alcohol, because people will substitute more dangerous intoxicants, increasing the net deaths from intoxication. Ergo, gun control is a net benefit, while prohibition is a net negative consequence.
No, I’m not withdrawing anything Hentor. I said there isn’t a 1 for 1 correlation, since the risk factors and groups are different. That said, you can look at the rough numbers…which is what I was doing.
No, I don’t, and I already did provide the rough evidence. Now it’s your turn to say something meaningful instead of picking at what I’ve written. Please give YOUR thoughts, in more than one line sentences, wrt either what’s being discussed here or what specifically you have a problem wrt what I’ve written or stated. Thanks in advance.
In other words you are merely speculating about the views/existence of these people and jumping back and forth between banning stuff and merely thinking that it is bad. I think there’s enough for a debate, but next time clear and upfront about who and what you’re talking about.
There is a specific benefit with hanging that doesn’t exist with gun use: I don’t think an innocent bystander has ever been accidentally killed in a drive-by hanging. 
“Firearm suicides have fallen from about 22% of all suicides in 1992[26] to 7% of all suicides in 2005.[27] Immediately following the Buyback there was a fall in firearm suicides which was more than offset by a 10% increase in total suicides in 1997 and 1998.”
“Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[31] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[32] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods.”
Cite?
I think you are trying to debate me while moderating. That’s not fair.
As usual, your cite doesn’t contradict my claim.
In keeping with your practice, I could just post some non-sequitur link, but I won’t. I will try to stay on the high road.
The cite found the increase in suicides other than guns did exceed the reduction in gun related suicide. So that does contradict your claim that it was a net positive.
If you don’t have a cite, just say so.
But I never claimed the increase in suicides other than guns exceeded the reduction in gun related suicide. Go back and read my claim again, then come back and apologize.
I didn’t say you did.
Your cite did not contradict my claim that a gun ban was a net positive.
Because they’re too drunk to shoot straight.
You said this…
“Unless the increase in number of hangings exceeded the decrease in gun deaths, I would say it is still a good thing.”
And my cite showed that suicides other than guns did exceed the drop in suicides by guns.
Did you just make up claim about prohibition of alcohol leading to a greater number of hard drug related deaths? I would think alcohol might be a bit of a gateway drug.
So, the Australian statistics seem to prove that hanging is a more sure fire method of suicide if you’re interested in getting it over with tonight. Other statistics show alcohol is more sure fire than guns if you are ambivalent about when it happens. It’s a good thing that alcoholism and nooses can’t be weaponized. :eek:
Really, most people fall in the reasonable middle about control of both weapons and alcohol, which is reflected in the law. Automatic weapon production and ownership, and the production of alcohol other than beer and wine are both heavily regulated. If you’re making beer and wine for sale, it’s pretty heavily regulated. Both could have specific regulations tightened or relaxed. For instance, I absolutely hate the laws requiring that producers, distributors and retailers of alcohol have to be separate in Texas. It tilts our beer industry in favor of the large brewers. Fortunately, they are being slowly relaxed. A new regulation I’d like to see: Make alcohol producers show their ingredients 
Kable, if you’re going to rail against someone, please do cite their existence. You argued with me in the Everclear thread as if I was for the current round of tighter gun regulations. You were wrong, as I am not for them. I think they will do little. Since that’s our track record so far, forgive me for feeling you might be projecting this stance on others. If you have a problem with a particular regulation of either alcohol or firearms, narrow it down a bit.