And a gun doesn’t shoot itself either. Sheesh, this is getting pretty lame. Why is it so hard to accept that alcohol kills many, many people both in this country and in others. The distinction you seem to want to make here is that with a gun you specifically go out to kill someone (in a very small amount of actual attacks such as the one that sparked all this), while with alcohol you do your killing randomly. Why you feel this distinction is meaningful is really beyond me.
Love this post. I think it perfectly captures the current thinking.
Haven’t read the thread, but I think it’s ironic that the shootings might hurt the chances of upcoming increased permissions for concealed carry in schools. Ironic because while the one event that might lower its chances of passing is also the one event in which it would be more useful than not. While overall it’s probably a bad thing to allow increased concealed carry in schools, because it would lead to an increase in just regular old shootings.
First of all, one man’s “randomly” is another man’s “accidentally,” and, yes, that is key. An accident, by definition, is not intentional.
If a person has a loaded gun, and nothing else, he can kill someone else pretty easily. If a person has a case of Budweiser and nothing else - apart from smashing it over someone’s head - he’s not going to kill anyone.
Secondly, there are laws against drunk-driving, there are programs to try to alleviate the problem, etc., and when someone kills someone in a drunk-driving accident, you don’t get a thousand drunk-drivers and the National Drunk-Driving Association jumping up and down yelling about everybody’s “knee-jerk” reactions.
Why don’t you think they can get satisfaction knowing that they would be famous postmortem. You first amendment objection doesn’t hold water either. We already don’t publish to names of minors.
Because you’re talking about violent maniacs, and I think they would just as easily be “satisfied” having murdered a score of people and wrecking a lot of lives. Or are you proposing that even the shooting victims not be told who the killer is? Ultimately keeping this information under wraps would be very difficult.
Sure we do: the names of all the victims in Newtown have been published all over the place. I think you mean that in certain situations, the press voluntarily declines to publish the names of rape victims and some criminals who aren’t of legal age. Those policies can vary from one news outlet to another, and they are entirely voluntary. (I also think their effectiveness has been compromised somewhat in recent years, but that’s another issue.) Making the publication of those names illegal fails on all kinds of Constitutional grounds.
The alcohol and drunk driving = guns analogy does hold to some extent, and was forcing me to think alcohol should be regulated more heavily. But this is a great point, and I’m glad you made it, because I really like drinking. Cheers! 
ETA: To the pro-gun types - I’m all for small government, and strongly believe government should be involved in as few aspects of our lives as possible. However, those aspects of our lives that allow us to cause harm to our fellow man are definitely among the things government should be involved in. It is a large part of why governments exist.
[QUOTE=Jack Batty]
First of all, one man’s “randomly” is another man’s “accidentally,” and, yes, that is key. An accident, by definition, is not intentional.
[/QUOTE]
Seems a rather arbitrary distinction to me. Oh, sorry…we didnt’ intentionally drive drunk and wipe out that whole family. It’s not like we MEANT too…so, we cool, right? :dubious:
You are really groping here. You do realize that many deaths and injuries involving alcohol don’t involve cars, right? Many of the gun deaths and injuries in fact involve alcohol. But that’s not the alcohols fault…it’s the car, or the bar stool, or the gun…right?
The last time I checked it was illegal to shoot someone with a gun as well. And the only jerking knees I see in these threads are from the anti-gun folks, going on a feeding frenzy of reinforced validation of their world view. Anyone who disagrees in the slightest from the ‘lets ban em all’ theme is a deranged gun fanatic. It’s pretty amusing, actually, especially to see the lengths folks are going to disprove the ‘bad’ and ‘stupid’ alcohol analogy. If we could harness the amount of handwaving going on we could probably power a small city…or at least give the hamsters a break.
When will that happy day be? Alcohol is also a major factor in many domestic violence incidents (and crimes of violence in general). Which isn’t surprising, since alcohol affects judgment and lowers impulse control; a lot of things may seem like a good idea when you’re drunk but not when you’re sober.
Self-driving cars won’t keep drunken people from starting lethal brawls or battering their spouses and children to death. We’ll still have plenty of alcohol-related homicides, they just won’t involve cars.
Tell that to the wife who’s been beaten to death by her drunken husband.
Combine alcohol with a human brain, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. Some folks just can’t hold their liquor. But we’ve chosen to tolerate that (because the opposite approach, Prohibition, proved unworkable).
No it’s not cool, but again, there’s no one saying – oh well, a few drunk driving deaths is just the price we’ll have to pay so that we can have the freedom of drinking and then driving.
Listen … no one is denying that alcohol *contributes *to a great many deaths, but apart from cirrhosis, it is not the direct cause of any of them. On the other hand, when someone shoots someone to death it wasn’t because the gun robbed them of their wits. The gun did what it was designed to do at the direction of its user.
If you’re not going to blame the alcohol when an angry drunken man beats his wife to death, then how can you blame the gun when an angry person shoots another person to death? Both the alcohol and the gun are inanimate objects. Neither created the anger, but both amplified it to lethal effect.
So the Constitution is, indeed, a suicide pact?
You’re mixing your metaphors or something. I can surely blame the alcohol for the man being violent. The gun isn’t affecting the man.
But when he picks up that gun he’s made the choice to kill reaaaaaly easily … much easier than going with the fists.
[QUOTE=Jack Batty]
No it’s not cool, but again, there’s no one saying – oh well, a few drunk driving deaths is just the price we’ll have to pay so that we can have the freedom of drinking and then driving.
[/QUOTE]
It’s the price we, as a society pay for allowing alcohol to be bought and used. Just like society pays a price for allowing people to own and use guns. Society pays a heavier price for allowing alcohol (and tobacco) use than it does for guns, but regardless there is a price and a non-zero amount of harm. This doesn’t seem, to me, to be such a hard concept to grasp but I guess it is.
No one is denying that guns contribute to a non-zero number of deaths, but apart from some maniacs going nuts, people who are already committing a crime anyway and people who are trying to commit suicide, it is not a direct cause of harm.
Seriously…you are totally handwaving here and trying for a dual standard. Alcohol doesn’t drink itself…guns don’t shoot themselves. Guns were designed to shoot bullets, alcohol was designed to alter your mood and senses. If you use them both wisely, then there is no issue. If you abuse either then you put yourself or others at risk and can do a lot of harm. The distinction you are trying to make about intentionally or accidentally harming yourself or others is completely arbitrary and meaningful only to you. It’s certainly not meaningful to the folks harmed by the abuse.
[QUOTE=Jack Batty]
But when he picks up that gun he’s made the choice to kill reaaaaaly easily … much easier than going with the fists.
[/QUOTE]
So what? When he picks up a bottle it’s really, really easy to kill himself or others with his abuse. Whether he kills someone using his fists, a gun, a knife, a car or a wombat they are still just as dead. The alcohol didn’t force the man to drink. The gun didn’t force him to kill. The wombat…well, ok, I concede that it could be at fault. But in the end, it was the MAN who is the one who abused the item in question (and, trust me, abusing a wombat after a bender is just not right)…he is ultimately responsible.
Society, by allowing those items to be used legally, accepts the cost to benefits of such a use, and basically agrees that the costs are worth the benefits overall.
What I’m finding interesting here is that when I started looking at the number of alcohol deaths in other countries I was astounded. I never realized how big a problem it really is. In countries with relatively small population you have a huge number, relative to the US, of deaths caused by alcohol. Europe especially seems to have a major issue in this respect…far, far outweighing the number of alcohol AND gun deaths in this country wrt population.
Aren’t fists the actual analog to the gun? Alcohol would be the analog to… alcohol.
So you don’t want to even try even if it would save children lives? I bring it up because I read it is already the policy in Canada.
Wouldn’t alcohol be the analog to the impaired mental judgement that causes someone to walk into a school of children and start shooting?
Can you find a citation for that? I was interested to read about it, but can’t find anything on it.
That works, too, but it’s still not analogous to the gun.
I keep getting drawn in despite thinking the whole gun/alcohol conversation is silly.