One of these things is not like the other. Read it again, this time for comprehension.
My apologies if it came off that way. I was trying to get you to elaborate on your subject, and I think I did. That being said, I don’t intend to post further here.
I believe that the government should create and enforce laws in ways that benefit the country’s people. Strict gun control laws benefit people by reducing violent crime. In the USA we have the most lax gun control laws in the first world and, as I mentioned, murder rates are many times higher than in any other first world country. I believe that we should imitate the gun control laws of other first world countries and thereby save the lives of thousands of people each year. If you’re trying to tell me that we should instead keep laws that lead to the murder of thousands of innocent people each year because of some unstated “principle”, then I’m afraid I must disagree.
Haha, Thank you!!
That dangerous gun, boy oh boy, we need to lock that thing up before it does some real damage!
Correlation? What are you correlating? What are the groups and what are the factors?
I’m trying to understand exactly what you are saying.
Because if, as it appears, you are just taking the number of people who die from alcohol and the number of people who die from firearms and comparing them, you should be able to do the same thing with any cause of death in order to determine which is safer, or “bad” or associated with greater “harm.”
Thus, when we see that 0 people in the US died from sarin gas last year, while approximately 11,000 people died from firearms and approximately 100,000 were injured, using your methodology, we would conclude that sarin gas is orders of magnitude less harmful than firearms. We could do the same thing with heroin, PCP, asbestos, mining collapses, airline travel, and so on and so forth.
But, you should say in reply, you can’t just compare the number of heroin deaths with the number of alcohol deaths or the number of firearms deaths and conclude that heroin is safer than alcohol or firearms because far fewer people are exposed to heroin as a risk for death. Far fewer people are exposed to sarin gas, so it’s foolhardy to say that sarin gas is safer than anything else.
Relative risk is not computed by taking the raw number of one thing and comparing it to the raw number of something else. It’s the risk of an outcome for a group exposed to risk relative to the risk of an outcome for a group not exposed to risk.
When the exposure is more complicated, issues like person-time at risk become involved. For instance, if you’re interested in the risk of black lung disease among miners, then the fact that one guy has it and another guy doesn’t is modified by knowing that the second guy was just hired and has been in a mine for one day while the first guy has been doing it for 20 years.
As I’ve said before, you have to convince others that the exposure is the same in the population if you want to make a crude comparison of the number of alcohol deaths and the number of firearms deaths.
That won’t fly, since the population is vastly more exposed to alcohol than to firearms. It simply cannot be disputed that more people use alcohol more often in more places than they do firearms.
It’s the same thing as learning that most accidents occur within a mile of home, and deciding therefore to move. More accidents occur close to home because you are close to home more often. Your exposure is greater.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian
]
Correlation? What are you correlating? What are the groups and what are the factors?
[/QUOTE]
Risk factors…such as this. Since the risk factors and risk groups are (obviously, to me anyway) different, there isn’t a 1 for 1 correlation, so I’m only making a rough approximation of risk here.
You are confusing probability of an event with some sort of weird ‘harmful’ definition. Sarin gas is much more deadly that firearms…or alcohol. However, the probability of a major sarin gas attack is orders of magnitude less than the probability that you will be shot with a gun…or killed in an alcohol related accident. You can certainly compare them as a function of risk, but, again, there isn’t a 1 for 1 correlation between the two since the risk factors are so different.
And we CAN do the same sorts of things with heroin risks, PCP, asbestos, mutant alien wombat invasion and all the rest…it’s a matter of probability. Roughly though, a comparison can be made between being killed or harmed via a gun and being killed or harmed through the use of alcohol, and one can look at the number of deaths per 100,000 to do at least a rough comparison of risk. This isn’t whatever the hell you are talking about with your ‘harmful’ thingy, since I don’t even know how to quantify that, but instead simply is looking at relative risk based on number of deaths per 100,000.
I wouldn’t say that at all. Why can’t we compare the number of heroin deaths to the number of alcohol deaths to get a rough approximation of real world risk factors? Obviously, heroin is more deadly than alcohol…as sarin gas is more deadly than a gun…but, well, so what? The probability of being killed by some guy strung out on heroin is much, much lower than the probability of being hit by a drunk driver…probably at least an order of magnitude less.
And has nothing to do with some sort of ‘harmful’(ness) scale either. It’s relative risk. Yes, I agree. That’s why I said, repeatedly, that it’s a rough approximation to compare alcohol to firearms deaths…same as if you compared the probability of being killed by that strung out heroin user and being hit by some drunk driving bozo coming back from a bar.
Risk factors even in a vertical field (such as JUST guns) vary, so there is no way to really correlate this stuff on a 1 for 1 basis. Not all populations even in the US are at equal risk of even being shot (or killed in a drunk driving accident or incident), let alone trying to compare the relative risk between the two in anything other than a rough approximation. I think, roughly, just using the deaths per 100,000 figures gives a rough, ball park approximation of real world risk…and, based on that, you are generally more likely to be killed by some bozo driving drunk than you are in a gun incident of any kind…especially when you consider that a large number of those 30k killed per year in gun incidents were suicides in the US. Now, I understand that you don’t agree with this…I’m cool with that. But you have in the past simply dismissed the whole argument without actually explaining your rationale, including in our brief PM exchange…nor have you gone into any depth as to your own take on any of this. In fact, this post of yours (which I appreciate btw) has been the most I’ve gotten out of you on this subject to date.
Anyway, I’m going to leave it at that for now. I have a plane to catch and hopefully a wife to leap tonight, so I’ll be a bit out of pocket. If you want to continue the discussion I will try and respond as I may either this weekend or next week. Have a good weekend Hentor.
I don’t know that that is the case. The recent Fleegler study that people have been citing found increased gun control found no statistical difference between homicides. The prior assault weapon ban seems to have had about zero effect on violent crime.
I’m not sure that proves your point. The Swiss have a lot of guns, and a lot of assault weapons in particular but their crimes rates are very low. So I think that indicates the problem is not the guns itself. Since our violence problems are much in the inner city I would blame a lot of it on the drug war, poverty, and maybe our honor culture.
Actually I’m a fan of guns mostly because one did in fact save my life in a home invasion, so I think they are great for self defense. Plus they are fun to shoot recreationally. You didn’t answer if you ever enjoyed an alcoholic drink. Do you?
FWIW I was was just playing devil’s advocate regarding the Everclear. I don’t know your particular view on firearms so I can’t say or not if it is consistent or hypocritical with regards to your view of alcohol. Your view regarding alcohol as I recall seemed reasonable to me.
Well, if you look in the background and their footprints are in a zigzag…
Blue laws are mostly gone here, but you are right about dry counties.
Gun owners will point out that you don’t need a concealed carry permit for booze, so long as you do conceal it, and consume at home. But in Arkansas and Kentucky, it may be a long drive to get that bottle. It would be a big issue if you had to drive those distances for a gun.
Most Americans want some gun freedom, and some gun laws. Same with alcohol.
Why are dry American counties regarded so calmly while cities with handgun control become an enormous political issue?
This wasn’t always true. Alcohol at one time was a bigger issue.
P.S. There may be, in self-driving automobiles, a technical solution to most alcohol-related deaths. And medical science may cure liver disease. So I’d say death is an undesired side-effect of alcohol we can overcome, not an inherent main feature as with guns.
When each home also had 50 rounds of government supplied cartridges was there a problem? Also 5.56x45 mm ammo is not banned so there is no reason to think they are running on empty. I think I have a few thousand rounds of 5.56 myself, none of which was government supplied.
Are you kidding? You going to magically cure fetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol provoked domestic violence as well? Besides as long as we are looking to the future we might get phasers we can set to stun and glittery pill boxes we can hold over wounds to heal them.
If you want to go the Swiss way, how about every American receiving their level of training before being issued a weapon?
I do think every American should be trained in gun use and safety. I would combine it with sex education in schools. How’s that?
It’ll hurt the action movie industry, Americans being knowledgeable about how guns really work.
Just saying.
Would you be willing to have it become mandatory to get that level of training to get a weapon? That is how the Swiss do it, after all.
I take it you haven’t seen people using computers in TV or movies…
Sure if the training were mandatory for everyone, like the Swiss do it.
Then I agree with you.