On a yearly basis, alcohol ends and ruins more lives than guns

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:

Indeed they are. Presumably with a rationale of public safety. Which is another way of saying, "Keeping people alive."

No it isn't. Public safety is about keeping people free from harm, where harm can be physical or psychological. As such, concerns of public safety are not limited to "keeping people alive".

Seaward wrote:

The concepts are not the same, no. The groups advocating for the one are in favor of the other, however. so while the concepts are separate, that's irrelevant when it comes to discussing the goal of anti-Second Amendment groups.

See, I don't think that's true. I think you're working very hard to erect a straw man.

**d-usa**

Part of it is that as far as the media is concerned, the vast majority of alcohol deaths are just not sexy stories. They cover the checkpoints, the crashes, and other alcohol stories. But most of the deaths they are guessing to be alcohol deaths are chronic medical problems. None of the news shows are going to report breaking news that "local 54 year old woman died of breast cancer that might have been caused by her drinking habit".

**Spacemanvic**

When a random person is killed by a drunk driver 2 states away, do you hear about it? Usually not.

When a random person is shot two states away, do you hear about it? Usually not.

Mass car pile-ups tend to result in only a few deaths as well. While you might hear about a 120 car pile-up, there will usually be only 3 or so deaths. Looking at Wikipedia's list of major pile-ups, there have been (since the start of 2012, so over 2 years) 12 deaths across 11 accidents, and their list is not just the US, but seems to include European countries as well. Not all of these were necessarily alcohol related, they don't mention the causes. Still, even if we assumed alcohol was to blame in ALL of them, that's still a relatively low number of fatalities.

A single mass shooting can match multiple years worth of accidents in terms of deaths, and if you have several in a single year, the deaths from mass shootings dwarf the deaths from mass pile-ups, which again, might not be alcohol related.

I think that explains media coverage pretty well. One person dying in an accident is common, as is one person dying to a gun. When you scale it up in rarity, a massive pile-up with 3-5 deaths is about as rare as a mass shooting, but the mass shooting probably has 10+ people dead. 10 people > 3 people.

Plus you always have the intrigue of "why?" When a drunk driver kills a person in an accident, the why is simple. They were drunk. That holds in almost all cases even when you scale it up. The "why" for mass shootings tends to be more complex and interesting, tying into mental illnesses, depression, etc.

As for politics, again I think it has to do with how alcohol and guns are viewed. We tried banning alcohol, it didn't work, alcohol won, and thus it, as an institution, is ingrained as something we live with and regulate as best we can. We never outright banned guns, so the culture around it developed differently. In addition, over 2/3rds of the US drinks. While a lot of people own guns, less than half the US owns guns. It's a lot easier to build political momentum on an issue when it's not something that is just sort of consistently present, like alcohol is.

Finally, I'm fairly certain alcohol is handled legally at the state level a lot more often than guns are. While the federal government could step in on alcohol more, a lot of things, like local sales, criminal penalties, etc., are handled at the state level. Guns are also handled at the state level, but I think the Federal government is just naturally more involved on gun issues than alcohol issues just sort of as a natural evolution of those two issues, hence when there's a death via alcohol it's more of a state thing whereas when there's a death via a gun it has more ties to national issues.

Edit: Also, as D-Usa was saying, homicides per gun owner (11,000 homicides, 40% of population owns guns) are higher than homicides tied to drinking (10,000 deaths, 67% of population drinks).

You really should read up on the misinformation you are spewing.

The rate of gun ownership has actually increased in the US in the last 10 years to well over 50%. A Gallop poll from 2011 reported a 47% increase - well before the current buying frenzy. The numbers exceed 50% if we were to take into account the number of first time buyers, as well as the growing influx of independent minded women who take the responsibility of self protection seriously.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

The whole push behind Gun Control is control, not safety. Always has been. As Americans were faced with the prospect of more control, they responded by purchasing more firearms in the 2011-2013 period than ever before. The fact that the MSM attempted to gin up support for gun control only pushed more people into looking into firearms ownership than ever before. Same thing happened during Prohibition.

**Relapse**

d-usa wrote:
Part of it is that as far as the media is concerned, the vast majority of alcohol deaths are just not sexy stories. They cover the checkpoints, the crashes, and other alcohol stories. But most of the deaths they are guessing to be alcohol deaths are chronic medical problems. None of the news shows are going to report breaking news that "local 54 year old woman died of breast cancer that might have been caused by her drinking habit".

I think you have it on the sexy angle. Watching someone disintigrate the way I have seen hardcore drinkers do seems to produce a , "who cares? They did it to themselves and it's never gonna happen to me," attitude from those that don't have any real association with the individual.

**sebster**

Relapse wrote:
What I am comparing here is the fact that alcohol kills more people than guns per year. I am not comparing which one is more dangerous(although I would say alcohol is more insidious because people seem to think it will never hurt them. By the time most users realize they are being adversly impacted, it's a battle to quit that they may not win)

As I said earlier, it's a common misconception that most people who suffer from alcohol consumption are addicted. The most common health impact is to the person who drinks, say, half a bottle of wine a few nights a week, out of habit and preference, not out of addiction, which is likely to shave years off their life.

That doesn't dispute your overall point, it's just something that needs to be pointed out as often as possible.

I am not talking prohibition because it is proven not to work, but I am saying that alcohol ads should go the way of cigarette ads

We've actually moved to banning colour and art on cigarette packaging down under. It's something I thought was pointless, but it has had an impact on sales, and incredibly smokers have reported that cigarettes taste differently.

Do you favour that kind of thing for alcohol, out of curiousity?

Personally I'm getting kind of bored of death statistics over-riding all other considerations. It's a dangerous world, and picking out one dangerous activitity at a time isn't going to make it meaningfully less dangerous, but it is going to make a lot less interesting for those of us who like those activities.

and the media report alcohol deaths and life crippling events with the same passion and frequency they reserve for guns.

A complete, informative view of the country as a whole is just not how news media works. News media works in exciting daily anecdotes - if there's vision and a story people find interesting that means it'll get played on the nightly news. That means stuff that's inherently scary, like a gun going in to a school and shooting, is going to get media play in a way that the boring but far more informative listing of leading causes of death just doesn't.

That's why some people perceive guns as getting a bad rap. But you'll note that just as people became hyper-concerned about the (incredibly small) threat of their kids getting shot at school, they remained entirely oblivious to the fact that while the debate continued, close to 30 people were getting killed on average each day in isolated incidents that didn't make the news at all.

There are reports in the news about alcohol and it's adverse effects, but nowhere near the scale reports about gun violence.

Just don't look to the news for that kind of information. It isn't what the news does. Asking it to do so is like teaching a pig to dance - you'll get frustrated and the pig will not change at all.

Fortunately that kind of information exists, in reports like the CDC ones you opened this thread with. Luckily we're in the information age now, where any person can go to national stats offices and the like to find all kinds of incredible stats about how the world really works.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
No it isn't. Public safety is about keeping people free from harm, where harm can be physical or psychological. As such, concerns of public safety are not limited to "keeping people alive".

I haven't seen anyone campaigning against the psychological harm caused by guns. When we're discussing public safety as it relates to firearms, we're talking about death.

See, I don't think that's true. I think you're working very hard to erect a straw man.

Think what you like. Anti-gun organizations function exactly like anti-abortion organizations, as I've said time and time again. They know they won't get an outright ban right off the bat, so the goal is incremental progress towards it, culminating in the form of bans-in-all-but-name.

**d-usa**

Spacemanvic wrote:
When a random person is killed by a drunk driver 2 states away, do you hear about it? Usually not.

When a random person is shot two states away, do you hear about it? Usually not.

Mass car pile-ups tend to result in only a few deaths as well. While you might hear about a 120 car pile-up, there will usually be only 3 or so deaths. Looking at Wikipedia's list of major pile-ups, there have been (since the start of 2012, so over 2 years) 12 deaths across 11 accidents, and their list is not just the US, but seems to include European countries as well. Not all of these were necessarily alcohol related, they don't mention the causes. Still, even if we assumed alcohol was to blame in ALL of them, that's still a relatively low number of fatalities.

A single mass shooting can match multiple years worth of accidents in terms of deaths, and if you have several in a single year, the deaths from mass shootings dwarf the deaths from mass pile-ups, which again, might not be alcohol related.

I think that explains media coverage pretty well. One person dying in an accident is common, as is one person dying to a gun. When you scale it up in rarity, a massive pile-up with 3-5 deaths is about as rare as a mass shooting, but the mass shooting probably has 10+ people dead. 10 people > 3 people.

Plus you always have the intrigue of "why?" When a drunk driver kills a person in an accident, the why is simple. They were drunk. That holds in almost all cases even when you scale it up. The "why" for mass shootings tends to be more complex and interesting, tying into mental illnesses, depression, etc.

As for politics, again I think it has to do with how alcohol and guns are viewed. We tried banning alcohol, it didn't work, alcohol won, and thus it, as an institution, is ingrained as something we live with and regulate as best we can. We never outright banned guns, so the culture around it developed differently. In addition, over 2/3rds of the US drinks. While a lot of people own guns, less than half the US owns guns. It's a lot easier to build political momentum on an issue when it's not something that is just sort of consistently present, like alcohol is.

Finally, I'm fairly certain alcohol is handled legally at the state level a lot more often than guns are. While the federal government could step in on alcohol more, a lot of things, like local sales, criminal penalties, etc., are handled at the state level. Guns are also handled at the state level, but I think the Federal government is just naturally more involved on gun issues than alcohol issues just sort of as a natural evolution of those two issues, hence when there's a death via alcohol it's more of a state thing whereas when there's a death via a gun it has more ties to national issues.

Edit: Also, as D-Usa was saying, homicides per gun owner (11,000 homicides, 40% of population owns guns) are higher than homicides tied to drinking (10,000 deaths, 67% of population drinks).

You really should read up on the misinformation you are spewing.

The rate of gun ownership has actually increased in the US in the last 10 years to well over 50%. A Gallop poll from 2011 reported a 47% increase - well before the current buying frenzy. The numbers exceed 50% if we were to take into account the number of first time buyers, as well as the growing influx of independent minded women who take the responsibility of self protection seriously.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

The whole push behind Gun Control is control, not safety. Always has been. As Americans were faced with the prospect of more control, they responded by purchasing more firearms in the 2011-2013 period than ever before. The fact that the MSM attempted to gin up support for gun control only pushed more people into looking into firearms ownership than ever before. Same thing happened during Prohibition.

Gun ownership is at 34%. Your inability to read your own source is a testament to the quality of the rest of your argument.

**DogofWar1**

Spacemanvic wrote:

You really should read up on the misinformation you are spewing.

The rate of gun ownership has actually increased in the US in the last 10 years to well over 50%. A Gallop poll from 2011 reported a 47% increase - well before the current buying frenzy. The numbers exceed 50% if we were to take into account the number of first time buyers, as well as the growing influx of independent minded women who take the responsibility of self protection seriously.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

The whole push behind Gun Control is control, not safety. Always has been. As Americans were faced with the prospect of more control, they responded by purchasing more firearms in the 2011-2013 period than ever before. The fact that the MSM attempted to gin up support for gun control only pushed more people into looking into firearms ownership than ever before. Same thing happened during Prohibition.

I'll admit first off that I'm not sure where the 40% came from. That might have been a typo on my part BUT:
1. Personal gun ownership is at 34% according to the gallup poll, which is actually less than what I cited
2. Even if we lumped in people who personally own guns + people who live in households with guns but don't own guns, the number is still 47% of Americans, less than 50%.

Now, perhaps after sales have jumped greater than 50% of Americans live in a home that contains guns, but it is unlikely that 50% of Americans actually personally own guns AND, guns homicides per gun owner would STILL be higher than alcohol related homicides per alcohol drinker.

**sebster**

d-usa wrote:
Gun ownership is at 34%. Your inability to read your own source is a testament to the quality of the rest of your argument.

It's incredible. Relapse had already posted that exact same link, and I'd corrected him on the same mistake, confusing household gun ownership with personal ownership. Then spacemanvic comes in, completely oblivious to that because he doesn't read the thread or read his own links, and makes the same bad claim.

People regularly compare arguing on the internet to whack-a-mole, with the same bad arguments popping up, getting whacked down, only for them to get up again and again until you can't be bothered any more. It looks like the game has changed though, now it seems that they don't even go down, they just get repeated straight away, in the same thread.

**DogofWar1**

Relapse wrote:

There are reports in the news about alcohol and it's adverse effects, but nowhere near the scale reports about gun violence.
I would challenge anyone here to watch the news and other shows the way they normally do and note the number of reports, exposes, etc. about gun violence and then contrast that with the number of news reports about alcohol related tragedies. As well as this count the number of advertisments that portray alcohol in a positive, fun way as opposed to those that show the negative effects. Do the same with whatever you read for news or entertainment and see how the numbers add up.

You need to understand that when small incidents happen, they do not receive national attention, either for guns or alcohol related homicides. Major incidents DO get reported. The reason you see so many more negative gun related things in the media is because there are few if any single incidents where alcohol caused 10+ deaths, while there are several incidents per year where guns do.

In addition, the earlier numbers you were citing about 11,000 vs. 88,000 aren't fair comparisons. You strip out all non-homicide related deaths by guns, while leaving in all non-homicide deaths for alcohol. Either you have to leave them all in, or strip them all out.

Personally, I think the better measure for societal welfare is to strip out self-inflicted deaths. Alcohol diseases and gun suicides, they are personal choices, as tragic as they are. I think the vast majority of kids learned about the dangers of drinking too much AND about the dangers of playing with guns. When someone chooses to ignore that to their own detriment, be it alcohol poisoning or suicide by gun, that is them hurting themselves, and for the purposes of which is worse for the safety of society, alcohol existing or guns existing, people who make personal choices to their own detriment shouldn't really be included, because they'd likely just replace one self-destructive behavior with another (swap heroin for alcohol and wrist cutting for guns, perhaps). The better measure for societal safety is the number of lives of people who would be saved FROM OTHERS with removal of the object.

As such, the fairer totals to compare are 10,000 for alcohol homicides, a number put forth earlier in the thread by several people, and 11,000 for gun homicides.

**Steve steveson**

DogofWar1 wrote:

As such, the fairer totals to compare are 10,000 for alcohol homicides, a number put forth earlier in the thread by several people, and 11,000 for gun homicides.

Is it just me, or do the numbers being very close make me wonder how many involve both...

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:

I haven't seen anyone campaigning against the psychological harm caused by guns. When we're discussing public safety as it relates to firearms, we're talking about death.

The argument is that the existence of organizations in favor of regulating firearm ownership implies that firearm ownership causes psychological harm either in general, or in select circumstances.

But no, when we're discussing public safety in the context of firearm ownership we are not merely discussing death as, even ignoring any psychological harm, firearms are clearly capable of causing non-lethal injuries. Again, you seem to be trying very hard to erect a straw man.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
The argument is that the existence of organizations in favor of regulating firearm ownership implies that firearm ownership causes psychological harm either in general, or in select circumstances.

That's a terrible, terrible argument.

But no, when we're discussing public safety in the context of firearm ownership we are not merely discussing death as, even ignoring any psychological harm, firearms are clearly capable of causing non-lethal injuries. Again, you seem to be trying very hard to erect a straw man.

I've read and seen enough anti-gun activism to know that death by firearm is, again and again, the statistic endlessly trotted out. You can go on claiming otherwise, I suppose. Enjoy?

**Alexzandvar**

In the end it comes down to the same thing as pot legalization, abortion, and other risky topics.

Keep it regulated, safe, and people informed on the consequences.

Seaward you are discounting entire advocacy organizations by making the claim ALL groups that desire gun regulation want the removal of guns from our society. Even the president you so despise has said that he believes it should always be legal to own a gun, but there should be proper regulations in place to ensure public safety and well being.

Limiting amount of firearms per house or amount of ammunition per person are the same as saying "We will make pot legal, but you can't keep a bale of the stuff just laying around"

If you make the claim you need over 100 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 guns (especially guns that would not be able to be used for hunting/home defense realisticy) your just being silly. Obviously there are exceptions if say, you have a gun collecting licensee or own a gun related business.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if you believe its the right of every citizen to own enough guns to stage a rebellion in there area than I hope YOU do lose your guns because as we can see abroad, violent revolutions against established governments with foreign support only leads to blood baths, on both sides.

If your a revolutionary 2nd amendment advocate, please stop as you make all others loose like they belong in the loony bin alongside you

**Seaward**

Alexzandvar wrote:
In the end it comes down to the same thing as pot legalization, abortion, and other risky topics.

I'm all for all of them.

Seaward you are discounting entire advocacy organizations by making the claim ALL groups that desire gun regulation want the removal of guns from our society. Even the president you so despise has said that he believes it should always be legal to own a gun, but there should be proper regulations in place to ensure public safety and well being.

Because the president has never lied about anything, that's for sure.

Democrats frequently claim they support Second Amendment rights. Politicians claim a lot of things that aren't true.

Limiting amount of firearms per house or amount of ammunition per person are the same as saying "We will make pot legal, but you can't keep a bale of the stuff just laying around"

Actually, it's not.

If you make the claim you need over 100 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 guns (especially guns that would not be able to be used for hunting/home defense realisticy) your just being silly.

Really? So you're saying you want gun owners to be very inexperienced with actually firing their gun?

I have around two thousand rounds in the house at any given time. I burn through roughly four hundred a week. My girlfriend does between one and two hundred. My carry gun doesn't become my carry gun until it's had at least two thousand through the pipe.

**Stuebi**

Im actually surprised that you wonder about such a thing. Politicians talk about whatever is currently debated most, the more outrage the better. A Politic wants to be elected again, and thus he will talk about current issues with the goal of seeming competent. Statistics and the like mean absolutely nothing in those scenarios, at least until enough people get worked up about them. Issues like that are not measured by their actual danger, but by the amount of outrage they provoke. Its the same with newspapers and TV. Yes its ironic and stupid, but it has been like that for forever.

Now, onto the actual issue. I actually just wanted to make a joke about not having seen a school killing being committed by using a glass full of Whisky, or an armed robbery by pointing a bottle of Cardinal at the owner. But its about 6 Pages too late for that, so i'll try the serious approach.

I find comparisons like that ridicolous, because it all sounds like "Y has more victims than X, and thus X is a non-issue." And I know the op has pointed out that for him, its about the irony of one issue being paraded around, while the other is not. But I think this is not true.

Alcohol, just like cigarettes, is demonized plenty. There are posters around, campaigns about "Dont drink and drive" and even debates about doing the same thing to alcohol that was done to cigarettes. (The whole stickers on Cig-Packs etc.) so I dont think alcohol is underpresented as an issue at all.

Also, some people in this thread questioned the necessity of alcohol. I agree that it is not critical, and arguing that "I NEED ALCOHOL" is pretty stupid. But there are positive things to the stuff, just like cigarettes.

I stopped smoking 1.5 years ago, but I can say that sometimes I really really miss it. It helped me calm down in stressful situations, gave me something to do when waiting somewhere and even served as grounds to meeting other people ("Do you have fire?")

Its similiar with alcohol. As long as you dont jug the stuff like water, it helps relaxing after a hard week, makes a lot of people more social and helps them open up and a lot of it tastes pretty nice too. So the statement that there is _no_ reason why alcohol isnt banned, is also pretty dumb.

Guns on the other hand, I dont consider positive in any way. At least, _real_ Guns. Marksmanship Competitions can just as easily be held by using nonlethal variants, and I dont mind those at all. The things are just way to dangerous in my eyes to be just carried around by everyone and used so casually. Thus I think the whole debate around the things is justified. You'd also have a hard time arguing with me about this, as we have Gun regulations over here and everything works out just fine, not to mention i've never seen someone over here complain that he cant run around with a loaded gun all day long.

**whembly**

Alexzandvar wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if you believe its the right of every citizen to own enough guns to stage a rebellion in there area than I hope YOU do lose your guns because as we can see abroad, violent revolutions against established governments with foreign support only leads to blood baths, on both sides.

If your a revolutionary 2nd amendment advocate, please stop as you make all others loose like they belong in the loony bin alongside you

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

-Thomas Jefferson

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stuebi wrote:

Guns on the other hand, I dont consider positive in any way. At least, _real_ Guns. Marksmanship Competitions can just as easily be held by using nonlethal variants, and I dont mind those at all. The things are just way to dangerous in my eyes to be just carried around by everyone and used so casually. Thus I think the whole debate around the things is justified. You'd also have a hard time arguing with me about this, as we have Gun regulations over here and everything works out just fine, not to mention i've never seen someone over here complain that he cant run around with a loaded gun all day long.

Spoken by someone who hasn't had a need to defend themselves...

**Stuebi**

whembly wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stuebi wrote:

Guns on the other hand, I dont consider positive in any way. At least, _real_ Guns. Marksmanship Competitions can just as easily be held by using nonlethal variants, and I dont mind those at all. The things are just way to dangerous in my eyes to be just carried around by everyone and used so casually. Thus I think the whole debate around the things is justified. You'd also have a hard time arguing with me about this, as we have Gun regulations over here and everything works out just fine, not to mention i've never seen someone over here complain that he cant run around with a loaded gun all day long.

Spoken by someone who hasn't had a need to defend themselves...

Yeah, maybe you should wonder about why so many people appearantly need to defend themselves in your country, instead of handing everyone a gun.

EDIT:

Also, maybe then wonder if giving everyone a gun is the correct response EVEN after ignoring underlying issues.

**Seaward**

Stuebi wrote:
Yeah, maybe you should wonder about why so many people appearantly need to defend themselves in your country, instead of handing everyone a gun.

Probably because there are almost as many guns in the US as there are people. I believe it's roughly a .9/1 ratio.

**Alexzandvar**

I did not say there couldn't be a revolution of sort, say, peaceful demonstration to change something.

Also advocating violent revolution is silly, and insane in our current world, not every quote from a famous person can be taken literally in modern context.

And Seaward, the fact you keep such a large amount of ammunition on you is frankly, scary, I hope to god you secure it properly. and you cannot take what YOU do and say "well I do it right so everyone else has to do it the same way".

Especially considering the fact that if if you hold more than one ounce of pot your considered a dealer, if you hold THAT much ammunition and THAT many guns you should be considered a dealer as well, or at least subject to more inspection/more government attention.

**Stuebi**

Seaward wrote:
Stuebi wrote:
Yeah, maybe you should wonder about why so many people appearantly need to defend themselves in your country, instead of handing everyone a gun.

Probably because there are almost as many guns in the US as there are people. I believe it's roughly a .9/1 ratio.

Holy Feth, really? I never knew it was actually that many.

**Steve steveson**

Alexzandvar wrote:

If you make the claim you need over 100 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 guns (especially guns that would not be able to be used for hunting/home defense realisticy) your just being silly. Obviously there are exceptions if say, you have a gun collecting licensee or own a gun related business.

I disagree.

20 bore shotgun
12 bore shotgun
.308 hunting rifle
.22 rim fire varmint rifle
.22 rim fire target rifle
.308 target rifle

That is 6 guns that I would have, all with uses, if I had the space and money (Which is not that much, I just have too many other hobbies). Thats without taking in to account the fact that if I was serious about target shooting I would want 2 match rifles, as the last thing you want is for one to go wrong on the day of a serious competition. Also without taking in to account home defense where people would want a pistol (which I disagree with, both on the basis of not thinking you need a gun for that, and that a shot gun would be far better).

Ammunition, once you have 3 different types of buckshot, for Goose/High Duck, Pheasant/Low Duck and Rabbit, some 308 and some .22 rim fire you only have 20 of each which would probably be enough for a days hunting, but would leave you very limited on target shooting and doing allot of messing about buying small batches all the time.

Now, I'm not saying the gun laws in the US are right. I do have problems with them, mostly to do with the fact that they result in so many guns ending up overseas in criminal hands, but putting abritery numbers on these things dose not work. Its the same thing that means you guys can't really get hold of anything over a .50.

Equally however, seeing some of the laws I can see why people are paranoid. I tis very difficult in the US to get a suppressor. It is far easier to get a rifle with a suppressor or something over .50 in the UK than the US.

What worries me more with the US is not so much the access to guns, but the attitude. The fact that many people do not think a gun safe is needed and that loaded in a draw and telling kids "Don't touch" is gun safety. I'm not saying all, or even most, people do this, but enough do to make me think that needs looking at. I think that without any licensing or whatever laws on safe gun storage would go along way to answering some of the dangers.

The same can be said with alcohol. More respect for alcohol and removing the "Binge Drinking Culture" would change allot.

I guess what I am trying to say is there is a cultural problem with guns and drink both in the UK and the US. Both have problems and both need addressing. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalala" helps no one.

**Seaward**

Alexzandvar wrote:
I did not say there couldn't be a revolution of sort, say, peaceful demonstration to change something.

Also advocating violent revolution is silly, and insane in our current world, not every quote from a famous person can be taken literally in modern context.

You should read the rest of the letter it's from sometime. Jefferson was the honey badger of the founding fathers, in that he just didn't give a gak.

And Seaward, the fact you keep such a large amount of ammunition on you is frankly, scary, I hope to god you secure it properly. and you cannot take what YOU do and say "well I do it right so everyone else has to do it the same way".

I keep 17 rounds on me. A couple thousand rounds would be impractical to carry on a daily basis. .45's heavy.

And I'm certainly not saying everyone has to do it the same way. I'm saying everyone has the right to do it the same way.

Especially considering the fact that if if you hold more than one ounce of pot your considered a dealer, if you hold THAT much ammunition and THAT many guns you should be considered a dealer as well, or at least subject to more inspection/more government attention.

I actually consider 2000 to be a pretty low amount to keep on hand. Guys I know who shoot IDPA have far more. They also practice a lot more.

I likely would, too, if I ever got into reloading, I probably should, given the transition to .45.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steve steveson wrote:
Equally however, seeing some of the laws I can see why people are paranoid. I tis very difficult in the US to get a suppressor. It is far easier to get a rifle with a suppressor or something over .50 in the UK than the US.

It sort of depends on where you live. Your local chief LEO can put a stop to the tax stamp process pretty quickly, but my impression is most don't.

It wasn't difficult for me to get a suppressor, it just involved an annoyingly long wait. The ATF isn't exactly speedy with the background check involved.

**Alexzandvar**

Steve steveson wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:

If you make the claim you need over 100 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 guns (especially guns that would not be able to be used for hunting/home defense realisticy) your just being silly. Obviously there are exceptions if say, you have a gun collecting licensee or own a gun related business.

I disagree.

20 bore shotgun
12 bore shotgun
.308 hunting rifle
.22 rim fire varmint rifle
.22 rim fire target rifle
.308 target rifle

That is 6 guns that I would have, all with uses, if I had the space and money (Which is not that much, I just have too many other hobbies). Thats without taking in to account the fact that if I was serious about target shooting I would want 2 match rifles, as the last thing you want is for one to go wrong on the day of a serious competition. Also without taking in to account home defense where people would want a pistol (which I disagree with, both on the basis of not thinking you need a gun for that, and that a shot gun would be far better).

Ammunition, once you have 3 different types of buckshot, for Goose/High Duck, Pheasant/Low Duck and Rabbit, some 308 and some .22 rim fire you only have 20 of each which would probably be enough for a days hunting, but would leave you very limited on target shooting and doing allot of messing about buying small batches all the time.

Now, I'm not saying the gun laws in the US are right. I do have problems with them, mostly to do with the fact that they result in so many guns ending up overseas in criminal hands, but putting abritery numbers on these things dose not work. Its the same thing that means you guys can't really get hold of anything over a .50.

Equally however, seeing some of the laws I can see why people are paranoid. I tis very difficult in the US to get a suppressor. It is far easier to get a rifle with a suppressor or something over .50 in the UK than the US.

lll concede that I am nowere near as educated as you in the area of gun law and gun ownership, which is why I threw out what I did speculatively. Honestly the fact this issue is so hotly debated just shows how important it is.

I understand, Ill think of this when posting in the future about guns. Although I think the amount of guns you can own should be based on the type.

**Steve steveson**

Seaward wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:
Equally however, seeing some of the laws I can see why people are paranoid. I tis very difficult in the US to get a suppressor. It is far easier to get a rifle with a suppressor or something over .50 in the UK than the US.

It sort of depends on where you live. Your local chief LEO can put a stop to the tax stamp process pretty quickly, but my impression is most don't.

It wasn't difficult for me to get a suppressor, it just involved an annoyingly long wait. The ATF isn't exactly speedy with the background check involved.

I was under the impression most didn't like to issue them. I guess it depends on which state and county you live in.

**Seaward**

Alexzandvar wrote:
Although I think the amount of guns you can own should be based on the type.

If you're worried about a couple pistols and a shotgun, I won't even talk about the stuff I got to play with before entering the private sector.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steve steveson wrote:
I was under the impression most didn't like to issue them. I guess it depends on which state and county you live in.

It might. I've never applied for one in, say, New York or California before.

**whembly**

Stuebi wrote:
whembly wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stuebi wrote:

Guns on the other hand, I dont consider positive in any way. At least, _real_ Guns. Marksmanship Competitions can just as easily be held by using nonlethal variants, and I dont mind those at all. The things are just way to dangerous in my eyes to be just carried around by everyone and used so casually. Thus I think the whole debate around the things is justified. You'd also have a hard time arguing with me about this, as we have Gun regulations over here and everything works out just fine, not to mention i've never seen someone over here complain that he cant run around with a loaded gun all day long.

Spoken by someone who hasn't had a need to defend themselves...

Yeah, maybe you should wonder about why so many people appearantly need to defend themselves in your country, instead of handing everyone a gun.

??? Ain't never going to be a utopia brah.

donkey-caves exist in this world... and some people will need an equalizer when defending themselves, their family and property.

EDIT:

Also, maybe then wonder if giving everyone a gun is the correct response EVEN after ignoring underlying issues.

Not EVERYONE needs a gun...

But to assume that we'd all get along is crazy pants.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
I did not say there couldn't be a revolution of sort, say, peaceful demonstration to change something.

Also advocating violent revolution is silly, and insane in our current world, not every quote from a famous person can be taken literally in modern context.

You should read the rest of the letter it's from sometime. Jefferson was the honey badger of the founding fathers, in that he just didn't give a gak.

Most definitely the honey badger of the founding fathers.

**Alexzandvar**

Seaward wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
Although I think the amount of guns you can own should be based on the type.

If you're worried about a couple pistols and a shotgun, I won't even talk about the stuff I got to play with before entering the private sector.

I am not worried about a couple pistols and a shotgun.

I don't like to talk about it because it tends to drop a nuke on the argument of what you can safely personally own.

My family owns a t-34/74, we own it out on our farm property because a friend wanted to be rid of it and we had the space so we got it on the cheap. We even own a couple of shells for it. Apparently it's pretty easy to own such a thing if you claim the whole historical relic thing

And if your wondering, the shot locker has 4 armor piercing, and 4 explosive.

**DogofWar1**

Seaward wrote:

Democrats frequently claim they support Second Amendment rights. Politicians claim a lot of things that aren't true.

A big part of the problem is that Democrats and Republicans perceive the breadth of the 2nd Amendment's right very differently.

I would guess the majority of Democrats aren't in favor of the outright banning of guns. I would also guess that the majority of Republicans aren't opposed to some basic restrictions on purchase, sale, and carrying of firearms.

The problem is, the fringes take any consensus and possible compromise and gak it up. To the far right, ANY restrictions on ownership, sale, and purchase (aside of restraining violent felons from buying them, because no one would be foolish enough to support that publicly) are violations of the 2nd Amendment, while to the far left, everything (including, up until that SC decision a couple years ago, outright banning of guns altogether) is fair game for restrictions.

**Alpha 1**

Has anyone broken down the 88000 alcohol deaths to see how many of them also included firearms or was that put into the firearms deaths portion on the statistic.
How many deaths were attributed because someone was operating a firearm while intoxicated, be it suicide or killing someone else. A lot of people like using drunk driving as a prominent argument for this topic.

Just curious