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.

I don't know about the US, but here we do regulate alcohol. Alcohol-related violence been an increasing problem with recent discussion on what to do about it.

But part of why the discussion is different is alcohol has positive effects that aren't related to killing things. If you regulate alcohol badly you risk hurting an awful lot of people's lives. If you regulate guns, not so much, because it turns out most people don't actually need a gun.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I don't know about the US, but here we do regulate alcohol. Alcohol-related violence been an increasing problem with recent discussion on what to do about it.

But part of why the discussion is different is alcohol has positive effects that aren't related to killing things. If you regulate alcohol badly you risk hurting an awful lot of people's lives. If you regulate guns, not so much, because it turns out most people don't actually need a gun.

How many people would be adversly affected by not having alcohol and what are the conditions that make this so?

Relapse wrote:

How many people would be adversly affected by not having alcohol and what are the conditions that make this so?

Restaurant/bar/club owners, plus the retail outlets that sell alcoholic beverages for one.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:

How many people would be adversly affected by not having alcohol and what are the conditions that make this so?

Restaurant/bar/club owners, plus the retail outlets that sell alcoholic beverages for one.

Under those terms, I could say gun store owners, manufacturers, their employees, and shooting ranges are adversly affected by excessive gun control or abolition.

Alcohol also can't be used in self defense. By taking away someone's right to use firearms you take away their ability to equal the playing field in the event of a robbery or attack.

But part of why the discussion is different is alcohol has positive effects that aren't related to killing things.

I differ in that if I hear about someone getting shot while attempting to rob someone else I think of it as a positive loss.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Alcohol also can't be used in self defense. By taking away someone's right to use firearms you take away their ability to equal the playing field in the event of a robbery or attack.

But part of why the discussion is different is alcohol has positive effects that aren't related to killing things.

I differ in that if I hear about someone getting shot while attempting to rob someone else I think of it as a positive loss.

Hey, whiskey bottles pack a punch.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Alcohol also can't be used in self defense. By taking away someone's right to use firearms you take away their ability to equal the playing field in the event of a robbery or attack.

But part of why the discussion is different is alcohol has positive effects that aren't related to killing things.

I differ in that if I hear about someone getting shot while attempting to rob someone else I think of it as a positive loss.

Hey, whiskey bottles pack a punch.

Harder to conceal though, I don't want anybody to know I'm packing

Ban alcohol! it's the only solution!

It was working well the first time. No problems at all.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Alcohol also can't be used in self defense. By taking away someone's right to use firearms you take away their ability to equal the playing field in the event of a robbery or attack.

But part of why the discussion is different is alcohol has positive effects that aren't related to killing things.

I differ in that if I hear about someone getting shot while attempting to rob someone else I think of it as a positive loss.

I don't know if there's enough positive to outweigh the list of negative effects coupled with the 88,000 deaths a year from alcohol use.

Again, from the CDC:

Excessive alcohol use has immediate effects that increase the risk of many harmful health conditions. These immediate effects are most often the result of binge drinking and include the following—

Unintentional injuries, including traffic injuries, falls, drownings, burns, and unintentional firearm injuries.

Violence, including intimate partner violence and child maltreatment. About 35% of victims report that offenders are under the influence of alcohol.

Alcohol use is also associated with 2 out of 3 incidents of intimate partner violence.

Studies have also shown that alcohol is a leading factor in child maltreatment and neglect cases, and is the most frequent substance abused among these parents.

Risky sexual behaviors, including unprotected sex, sex with multiple partners, and increased risk of sexual assault. These behaviors can result in unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.

Miscarriage and stillbirth among pregnant women, and a combination of physical and mental birth defects among children that last throughout life.

Alcohol poisoning, a medical emergency that results from high blood alcohol levels that suppress the central nervous system and can cause loss of consciousness, low blood pressure and body temperature, coma, respiratory depression, or death.

Long-Term Health Risks

Over time, excessive alcohol use can lead to the development of chronic diseases, neurological impairments and social problems. These include but are not limited to—
Neurological problems, including dementia, stroke and neuropathy.

Cardiovascular problems, including myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation and hypertension.

Psychiatric problems, including depression, anxiety, and suicide.

Social problems, including unemployment, lost productivity, and family problems.

Cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast.20 In general, the risk of cancer increases with increasing amounts of alcohol.

Liver diseases, including—
Alcoholic hepatitis.
Cirrhosis, which is among the 15 leading causes of all deaths in the United States.

Among persons with Hepatitis C virus, worsening of liver function and interference with medications used to treat this condition.

Relapse wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I don't know about the US, but here we do regulate alcohol. Alcohol-related violence been an increasing problem with recent discussion on what to do about it.

But part of why the discussion is different is alcohol has positive effects that aren't related to killing things. If you regulate alcohol badly you risk hurting an awful lot of people's lives. If you regulate guns, not so much, because it turns out most people don't actually need a gun.

How many people would be adversly affected by not having alcohol and what are the conditions that make this so?

The primary benefit of alcohol is that people enjoy consuming it. That's the good it causes.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I don't know about the US, but here we do regulate alcohol. Alcohol-related violence been an increasing problem with recent discussion on what to do about it.

But part of why the discussion is different is alcohol has positive effects that aren't related to killing things. If you regulate alcohol badly you risk hurting an awful lot of people's lives. If you regulate guns, not so much, because it turns out most people don't actually need a gun.

How many people would be adversly affected by not having alcohol and what are the conditions that make this so?

The primary benefit of alcohol is that people enjoy consuming it. That's the good it causes.

So that's it? 88,000 dead a year (in America), solely for recreation?

 djones520 wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I don't know about the US, but here we do regulate alcohol. Alcohol-related violence been an increasing problem with recent discussion on what to do about it.

But part of why the discussion is different is alcohol has positive effects that aren't related to killing things. If you regulate alcohol badly you risk hurting an awful lot of people's lives. If you regulate guns, not so much, because it turns out most people don't actually need a gun.

How many people would be adversly affected by not having alcohol and what are the conditions that make this so?

The primary benefit of alcohol is that people enjoy consuming it. That's the good it causes.

So that's it? 88,000 dead a year (in America), solely for recreation?

Hey, I'm not making an argument that alcohol is used perfectly in our cultures, or couldn't do with better regulation or whatever. I'm just saying it's quite different to guns in that regard.

Personally, I've never in my life been in a situation where I've suffered for lack of a gun, but I've been in plenty where I could have enjoyed a drink.

And the millions of Americans who find recreational use from their firearms? Whether sport shooting or hunting?

Edit: To expand, I'm just pointing out that double standard again. Alcohol is good because of recreation, nothing else really. Yet firearms provide that, and self defense, and is still the boogeyman.

And cannabis kills far fewer than either, yet remains illegal in the majority of the country.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
And cannabis kills far fewer than either, yet remains illegal in the majority of the country.

Conversely, cholesterol and other side effects of what can only be called "recreational eating" kills many, many more than all of them

 djones520 wrote:
And the millions of Americans who find recreational use from their firearms? Whether sport shooting or hunting?

Edit: To expand, I'm just pointing out that double standard again. Alcohol is good because of recreation, nothing else really. Yet firearms provide that, and self defense, and is still the boogeyman.

Firearms provide the ability to kill very efficiently. Alcohol does not. They are not the same.

But of course I'd be down with additional regulation of alcohol if you could make a good case for the particular regulation.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


Firearms provide the ability to kill very efficiently. Alcohol does not. They are not the same.

Have you seen the victims of a drunk driving wreck? people killed in traffic accidents can be killed just as efficiently as with a gun. They provide the same results, and in this case it REALLY doesnt matter how one comes to that result.

The problem with ANY legislation that Western Nations can come up with for further regulating alcohol, or firearms, or driving cars, etc. is that they further limit the people who are actually "squared away" (that is to say, only law abiding citizens will be effected by regulations)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


Firearms provide the ability to kill very efficiently. Alcohol does not. They are not the same.

Have you seen the victims of a drunk driving wreck? people killed in traffic accidents can be killed just as efficiently as with a gun. They provide the same results, and in this case it REALLY doesnt matter how one comes to that result.

The problem with ANY legislation that Western Nations can come up with for further regulating alcohol, or firearms, or driving cars, etc. is that they further limit the people who are actually "squared away" (that is to say, only law abiding citizens will be effected by regulations)

Bingo. Despite my first post here, I don't advocate any tighter restrictions on alcohol consumption. I just want the double standard to stop. If your going to go after one "killer" with such zealousness, then all such "killers" should be attacked with the same level.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
And the millions of Americans who find recreational use from their firearms? Whether sport shooting or hunting?

Edit: To expand, I'm just pointing out that double standard again. Alcohol is good because of recreation, nothing else really. Yet firearms provide that, and self defense, and is still the boogeyman.

Firearms provide the ability to kill very efficiently. Alcohol does not. They are not the same.

But of course I'd be down with additional regulation of alcohol if you could make a good case for the particular regulation.

There is only a difference of a few hundred people between those killed by drunk drivers and those murdered by guns.
If the government numbers and statistics showing that alcohol is actually far more damaging than guns doesn't make the case for you, then not much will.

@Djones520, That's exactly what my point has been. People are going to drink, no stopping that, but they shouldn't be high horsing it when the industry they support creates so much more death and havoc with people's lives.

The difference, as I see, is that a gun is a weapon. It has been designed purely with the intent to kill.
Alcohol is not.
Guns make it very easy to kill other people if you want to. Alcohol does not.
Another difference regarding the numbers of alcohol related deaths vs the number of gun related deaths in the US is that alcohol is probably far more used than guns are.
To be honest, I do not really see the value in comparing guns to alcohol. They are two completely different things.
Or did you want to compare all possible causes of death?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The difference, as I see, is that a gun is a weapon. It has been designed purely with the intent to kill.

Except there you are wrong. A gun is a weapon no more than a Frying pan is. A gun puts a projectile onto a target at a high velocity, many of these are designed purely for the pursuit of marksmanship awards/competition.


The numbers here are not lying to you. In the OP it was what, 60% of all firearm deaths are suicides? The big difference here is that alcohol invariably is taking someone else along for the "ride"

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The difference, as I see, is that a gun is a weapon. It has been designed purely with the intent to kill.
Alcohol is not.
Guns make it very easy to kill other people if you want to. Alcohol does not.
Another difference regarding the numbers of alcohol related deaths vs the number of gun related deaths in the US is that alcohol is probably far more used than guns are.
To be honest, I do not really see the value in comparing guns to alcohol. They are two completely different things.
Or did you want to compare all possible causes of death?

It might not be designed to kill people, yet it causes a far greater number of deaths a year. It's not designed to cause spouse or child abuse either, yet 2 out of three cases involve alcohol use. What we see on television are advertisements telling us that alcohol is all fun with the little "drink responsibly" statement at the end. If a drug company product caused these kind of effects, people would be up in arms with pitchforks and torches, even though the drug isn't designed to kill people and regardless if it was used far more than guns.


The defense for alcohol that it isn't designed to cause death but guns are is a poor one.

Relapse wrote:

Why the silence from these people about alcohol when it kills more and destroys more lives through various means, like job loss, health loss, marriages ruined, etc.?

Because the US has been there, and done that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

Bingo. Despite my first post here, I don't advocate any tighter restrictions on alcohol consumption. I just want the double standard to stop. If your going to go after one "killer" with such zealousness, then all such "killers" should be attacked with the same level.

The "double standard" exists because alcohol use and firearm ownership are not comparable. The most obvious distinction being that consuming alcohol impairs one's ability to reason, while owning a firearm does not.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Why the silence from these people about alcohol when it kills more and destroys more lives through various means, like job loss, health loss, marriages ruined, etc.?

Because the US has been there, and done that.

I'm not talking prohibition, though, just wondering why we don't get news items on the scale we do whenever people are killed by firearms.

That impairment of reasoning, as we see from the statistics, brings with it a lot of dire consequenses, though.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Except there you are wrong. A gun is a weapon no more than a Frying pan is. A gun puts a projectile onto a target at a high velocity, many of these are designed purely for the pursuit of marksmanship awards/competition.

Frying pans weren't designed to be used as weapons, whereas guns were. Indeed, marksmanship competitions exist, in large part, because of this fact.

You don't see many "How hard can you hit this target with a frying pan?" competitions.

Relapse wrote:

I'm not talking prohibition, though, just wondering why we don't get news items on the scale we do whenever people are killed by firearms.

I'm arguing that we don't see articles discussing alcohol use in particular because of Prohibition. On a national level, the US has decided that alcohol use is acceptable; to the point where it is considered strange when a person does not drink.

Of course, there are plenty of articles discussing the consequences of alcohol use. Usually they question whether or not alcohol was a factor in horrible thing X, where "X" is usually a car accident.

I was actually surprised to see the statistic showing that roughly only only 60% of people admit to alcohol use. But I think you are right. Despite the damage it causes, people are conditioned to turn a blind eye to the negative factors of alcohol.

Relapse wrote:
I was actually surprised to see the statistic showing that roughly only only 60% of people admit to alcohol use. But I think you are right. Despite the damage it causes, people are conditioned to turn a blind eye to the negative factors of alcohol.

Where did you get that statistic?

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I was actually surprised to see the statistic showing that roughly only only 60% of people admit to alcohol use. But I think you are right. Despite the damage it causes, people are conditioned to turn a blind eye to the negative factors of alcohol.

Where did you get that statistic?

It's a rough figure from here:



http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well
1:Guns tend, not always as shown before, meant to kill other people(And mostly yourself if you roll a one) (guns, when used properly, protect lives, alcohol cannot)
2:No one is going into schools and killing people with tequila shots (really? I know 3 PERSONAL friends who died because of alcohol in high school)
3: Alchohol Tastes good, a lead bullet im sure doesnt(I have yet t been able to catch a bullet in my mouth) (ummm.. this is silly,)
4: Drunk people are hilarious, Dead people not so much(Sometimes though) (drunk people are only hilarious to drunk people, and cause lots of damage, death, mayham ect)
5: Guns hit on touch AC and have no place in my fantasy

to the OP,

yes its true, if someone dies from a car, or alchohol related reason, no one really cares (in the media and tv viewer world)... and no one calls to increase regulation, or ban these...

but when less people die from guns, its somehow worse... because people get all emotional due to lack of understanding of how guns actually work. put simply, cars, are far more deadly then guns, the debate on banning/limiting gun usage is based on completly false pretenses that they are somehow "unique" or above other tools in their killing power.


cars are just multi tonne, guided bullets, that can back up and "shoot" again until the gas runs out, not to mention they will hit multiple people due to the increased size.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well
1:Guns tend, not always as shown before, meant to kill other people(And mostly yourself if you roll a one)

Where I come from, a one with a gun is a critical hit.

2:No one is going into schools and killing people with tequila shots

I know people who drank in school. Flasks FTW (For Their Win)

3: Alchohol Tastes good, a lead bullet im sure doesnt(I have yet t been able to catch a bullet in my mouth)

I... I actually don't have anything for this.

4: Drunk people are hilarious, Dead people not so much(Sometimes though)

Dead people can be hilarious when they ragdoll all over the place due to a glitchy physics system.

5: Guns hit on touch AC and have no place in my fantasy