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 keep reading on these forums about how guns need to be outlawed to prevent murder and there have been several threads started after different shootings happen. In that time there have probably been as many if not more deaths caused by drunk drivers, but I havn't seen a single thread about that.
Here's some stats:



http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Protip: Drunk driving is illegal.

Relapse wrote:
I keep reading on these forums about how guns need to be outlawed to prevent murder

Then it sounds like you aren't really reading these forums, but focusing in on a limited number of posts. Pretty sure AustonT or Jihadin have never said such a thing, and I know I haven't either. At best the argument has been that gun control (of varying degrees depending on the poster) would lower gun related homicide, not just murder in general.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Protip: Drunk driving is illegal.

Protip backatcha, so isn't murder using a gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I keep reading on these forums about how guns need to be outlawed to prevent murder

Then it sounds like you aren't really reading these forums, but focusing in on a limited number of posts. Pretty sure AustonT or Jihadin have never said such a thing, and I know I haven't either. At best the argument has been that gun control (of varying degrees depending on the poster) would lower gun related homicide, not just murder in general.

The fact is that the posts are there, ie theatre shooting, New York shooting, gun control threads, etc. My point is this, drunk driving kills as many or more people than murders with guns, yet we don't have the threads addressing this the way we do guns.

Relapse wrote:
Protip backatcha, so isn't murder using a gun.

Murder of any type is illegal. What an odd thing to say.

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Protip backatcha, so isn't murder using a gun.

Murder of any type is illegal. What an odd thing to say.

You know what I meant by that statement, no need to be deliberatly obtuse.

Relapse wrote:
The fact is that the posts are there, ie theatre shooting, New York shooting, gun control threads, etc. My point is this, drunk driving kills as many or more people than murders with guns, yet we don't have the threads addressing this the way we do guns.

Drunk driving deaths are incidental whereas someone going into a theater and shooting people is purposeful; the drunk driver isn't trying to kill people whereas the armed gunman is. Impaired driving is something we actively try to crack down on, as evidenced by constant barrage of commercials and billboards extolling that the police will get you as well as a number of organizations such as MADD. If we follow your reasoning it leads to guns being illegal just as drunk driving is illegal since both lead to deaths.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
You know what I meant by that statement, no need to be deliberatly obtuse.

Actually I didn't, as it seems you wrote it while impaired, possibly from alcohol.

Now we're having a discussion. Your point is that murder by gun is worse because someone deliberatly killed someone else, but killing people by impaired driving is forgivable because the person didn't set out to kill anyone, correct?
I disagree because people are well aquainted with the fact that driving drunk is gambling with other people's lives.

All comes down to responsibility.

Relapse wrote:
Your point is that murder by gun is worse

Where did I say worse? I just said they were different. Can't have a discussion with you making up information to suit you as it goes on. Do you really not understand the difference between an accidental death and the premeditated killing of other human being? You'll also notice that DUI and Murder they aren't the same crimes with the same punishment. Looking at just the end result (people are dead) and ignoring all context doesn't really address either problem.

I like where this thread is headed.

We should outlaw violence. Then violent crime will cease altogether. Then we'll outlaw car accidents and those will stop too. Then we can outlaw death and live forevah!

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Your point is that murder by gun is worse

Where did I say worse? I just said they were different. Can't have a discussion with you making up information to suit you as it goes on. Do you really not understand the difference between an accidental death and the premeditated killing of other human being? You'll also notice that DUI and Murder they aren't the same crimes with the same punishment. Looking at just the end result (people are dead) and ignoring all context doesn't really address either problem.

Easy there, no need to get all hyped up. I just want to understand your point a bit better and am not tailoring anything.
The way you called Impaired driving deaths incidental and gun deaths purposeful seems to imply one act is worse than the other.

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Your point is that murder by gun is worse

Where did I say worse? I just said they were different. Can't have a discussion with you making up information to suit you as it goes on. Do you really not understand the difference between an accidental death and the premeditated killing of other human being? You'll also notice that DUI and Murder they aren't the same crimes with the same punishment. Looking at just the end result (people are dead) and ignoring all context doesn't really address either problem.

Easy there, no need to get all hyped up. I just want to understand your point a bit better and am not tailoring anything.
The way you called Impaired driving deaths incidental and gun deaths purposeful seems to imply one act is worse than the other.

No it means one is purposeful and one is incidental, you can then make an argument that one is worse then the other. Is the end result what matters or is it the intention

 youbedead wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Your point is that murder by gun is worse

Where did I say worse? I just said they were different. Can't have a discussion with you making up information to suit you as it goes on. Do you really not understand the difference between an accidental death and the premeditated killing of other human being? You'll also notice that DUI and Murder they aren't the same crimes with the same punishment. Looking at just the end result (people are dead) and ignoring all context doesn't really address either problem.

Easy there, no need to get all hyped up. I just want to understand your point a bit better and am not tailoring anything.
The way you called Impaired driving deaths incidental and gun deaths purposeful seems to imply one act is worse than the other.

No it means one is purposeful and one is incidental, you can then make an argument that one is worse then the other. Is the end result what matters or is it the intention

There you have it. The end result is what I'm talking about, and how it seems more than a few advocates of gun control are so because of the number of people killed. Yet purposeful or not, more people are killed by drunk drivers than are murdered by guns and I really don't see that many threads about alcohol control as compared to threads about guns here.

A agree with Relapse. We should make it illegal to drive while drunk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 youbedead wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Your point is that murder by gun is worse

Where did I say worse? I just said they were different. Can't have a discussion with you making up information to suit you as it goes on. Do you really not understand the difference between an accidental death and the premeditated killing of other human being? You'll also notice that DUI and Murder they aren't the same crimes with the same punishment. Looking at just the end result (people are dead) and ignoring all context doesn't really address either problem.

Easy there, no need to get all hyped up. I just want to understand your point a bit better and am not tailoring anything.
The way you called Impaired driving deaths incidental and gun deaths purposeful seems to imply one act is worse than the other.

No it means one is purposeful and one is incidental, you can then make an argument that one is worse then the other. Is the end result what matters or is it the intention

Accidental gun deaths account for a meaningful portion of gun death statistics annually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Protip: Drunk driving is illegal.

Protip backatcha, so isn't murder using a gun.

You wanted "so is".

...Also that comparison does't work. Driving drunk is akin to operating a gun while drunk. Murdering someone intentionally with a car is akin to murdering someone intentionally with a gun. You're doing what you always do and drawing false comparisons because it's easy for you to score a few meaningless and silly one liners.

Stop it.



this thread is bad and you should all feel bad

Relapse wrote:
I keep reading on these forums about how guns need to be outlawed to prevent murder and there have been several threads started after different shootings happen. In that time there have probably been as many if not more deaths caused by drunk drivers, but I havn't seen a single thread about that.
Here's some stats:



http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Oh wow, you're absolutely right. Why is there so much fuss about making guns illegal and hardly any about making drink driving illegal? It's almost like it already is.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously, I know everyone is making the same point but it looked like it was going to keep going over Relapse's head until someone posted a Pickard faceplam.

Relapse wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Protip: Drunk driving is illegal.

Protip backatcha, so isn't murder using a gun.

Protip #2: Owning a gun, which is what you wanted the discussion to be about, isn't illegal. It's more discussed than something that is already illegal because the debate is whether to make it illegal.

Relapse wrote:
Your point is that murder by gun is worse because someone deliberatly killed someone else, but killing people by impaired driving is forgivable because the person didn't set out to kill anyone, correct?

Murder by gun is generally worse because its generally murder, as opposed to manslaughter.

 Glorioski wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I keep reading on these forums about how guns need to be outlawed to prevent murder and there have been several threads started after different shootings happen. In that time there have probably been as many if not more deaths caused by drunk drivers, but I havn't seen a single thread about that.
Here's some stats:



http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

F

Oh wow, you're absolutely right. Why is there so much fuss about making guns illegal and hardly any about making drink driving illegal? It's almost like it already is.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously, I know everyone is making the same point but it looked like it was going to keep going over Relapse's head until someone posted a Pickard facephlam.

Clearly everyone here realizes murder and drunk driving are both illegal. My point is that there seems to be more uproar over people being murdered by guns than people being killed by drunk drivers even though more people die because of drunk driving than gun crimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Your point is that murder by gun is worse because someone deliberatly killed someone else, but killing people by impaired driving is forgivable because the person didn't set out to kill anyone, correct?

Murder by gun is generally worse because its generally murder, as opposed to manslaughter.

True enough. I started thinking about this because I was remembering some friends that had died because of impared drivers.

Clearly everyone here realizes murder and drunk driving are both illegal. My point is that there seems to be more uproar over people being murdered by guns than people being killed by drunk drivers even though more people die because of drunk driving than gun crimes.

Probably because you don't drive a gun to work and alcohol purchasing is more heavily regulated than ammo.

Probably because you don't drive a gun to work

Depends where at in the world you are

Well. let's look at this a bit rationally with regards to drunk driving. If you want to compare this with guns you have to take one thing in consideration: it is not the action that some people have a problem with, it is the object.

So if you want to compare the two you have to focus on the "weapon" and not the action. So you have to compare car to gun, not "drunk driver" to gun owner.

And if you look at the "weapons" like that, then we are already treating guns and cars exactly the same.

You can own both without much difficulty. Want to buy a gun, go down to the store and buy one. Want to buy a car, go down to the store and buy one.

Want to use it in public? Get a license. You need a drivers license to operate a car in public. You need a concealed carry license to operate your gun in public. Both licenses require education on the applicable laws and regulations. Both licenses require practicing under instruction. Both licenses require an exam and presentation that you can safely and accurately operate your gun/car.

Both are illegal to operate while intoxicated. Drive a car drunk, go to jail. Carry concealed while drunk, go to jail.

Use one unlawfully, go to jail. Use the other unlawfully, go to jail.

So there is not really any difference between the two at all.

So there is not really any difference between the two at all.

People won't accept a answer so simple as that.

 d-usa wrote:
Well. let's look at this a bit rationally with regards to drunk driving. If you want to compare this with guns you have to take one thing in consideration: it is not the action that some people have a problem with, it is the object.

So if you want to compare the two you have to focus on the "weapon" and not the action. So you have to compare car to gun, not "drunk driver" to gun owner.

And if you look at the "weapons" like that, then we are already treating guns and cars exactly the same.

You can own both without much difficulty. Want to buy a gun, go down to the store and buy one. Want to buy a car, go down to the store and buy one.

Want to use it in public? Get a license. You need a drivers license to operate a car in public. You need a concealed carry license to operate your gun in public. Both licenses require education on the applicable laws and regulations. Both licenses require practicing under instruction. Both licenses require an exam and presentation that you can safely and accurately operate your gun/car.

Both are illegal to operate while intoxicated. Drive a car drunk, go to jail. Carry concealed while drunk, go to jail.

Use one unlawfully, go to jail. Use the other unlawfully, go to jail.

So there is not really any difference between the two at all.

Except one is required for a modern society and economy to function because it enables mass personal transit and the other is a device designed specifically to kill humans with virtually no productive or educational uses. You can't operate a nuclear reactor while drunk either, I don't see you clamouring to try and say that nuclear reactors and cars are the same fething things. You know why?

Because it's a bad argument and makes no fething sense.

I was not convinced, but then I saw red text and cursing. That must mean that person is right...

 d-usa wrote:
I was not convinced, but then I saw red text and cursing. That must mean that person is right...

I wouldn't be here otherwise.

 d-usa wrote:
Well. let's look at this a bit rationally with regards to drunk driving. If you want to compare this with guns you have to take one thing in consideration: it is not the action that some people have a problem with, it is the object.

So if you want to compare the two you have to focus on the "weapon" and not the action. So you have to compare car to gun, not "drunk driver" to gun owner.

And if you look at the "weapons" like that, then we are already treating guns and cars exactly the same.

You can own both without much difficulty. Want to buy a gun, go down to the store and buy one. Want to buy a car, go down to the store and buy one.

Want to use it in public? Get a license. You need a drivers license to operate a car in public. You need a concealed carry license to operate your gun in public. Both licenses require education on the applicable laws and regulations. Both licenses require practicing under instruction. Both licenses require an exam and presentation that you can safely and accurately operate your gun/car.

Both are illegal to operate while intoxicated. Drive a car drunk, go to jail. Carry concealed while drunk, go to jail.

Use one unlawfully, go to jail. Use the other unlawfully, go to jail.

So there is not really any difference between the two at all.

Pretty good. Consider this also, a car being operated by a drunk driver has the potential to do more loss of life than someone with a gun and murderous intent and in fact does according to statistics.
Dogma made a point about drunk driving being manslaughter. Clearly no one in their right mind is going out in a car with the intent to kill people. However the consequences of driving impaired cause a third of all traffic fatalities.
Should something more be done with laws against impaired driving?

I think in regards to the OP it seems like he is concerned that people are more active in regards to guns than drunk driving.

But people around here are always pushing for more laws, more education, more public awareness, interlock devices, designsted driver rewards, etc.

I have seen maybe two semi-public "get a free gun-lock" campaigns in the last year, but I constantly see anti-drunk driving campaigns.

 d-usa wrote:
I think in regards to the OP it seems like he is concerned that people are more active in regards to guns than drunk driving.

But people around here are always pushing for more laws, more education, more public awareness, interlock devices, designsted driver rewards, etc.

I have seen maybe two semi-public "get a free gun-lock" campaigns in the last year, but I constantly see anti-drunk driving campaigns.

That's a pretty correct assesment of my point.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well. let's look at this a bit rationally with regards to drunk driving. If you want to compare this with guns you have to take one thing in consideration: it is not the action that some people have a problem with, it is the object.

So if you want to compare the two you have to focus on the "weapon" and not the action. So you have to compare car to gun, not "drunk driver" to gun owner.

And if you look at the "weapons" like that, then we are already treating guns and cars exactly the same.

You can own both without much difficulty. Want to buy a gun, go down to the store and buy one. Want to buy a car, go down to the store and buy one.

Want to use it in public? Get a license. You need a drivers license to operate a car in public. You need a concealed carry license to operate your gun in public. Both licenses require education on the applicable laws and regulations. Both licenses require practicing under instruction. Both licenses require an exam and presentation that you can safely and accurately operate your gun/car.

Both are illegal to operate while intoxicated. Drive a car drunk, go to jail. Carry concealed while drunk, go to jail.

Use one unlawfully, go to jail. Use the other unlawfully, go to jail.

So there is not really any difference between the two at all.

Pretty good. Consider this also, a car being operated by a drunk driver has the potential to do more loss of life than someone with a gun and murderous intent and in fact does according to statistics.
Dogma made a point about drunk driving being manslaughter. Clearly no one in their right mind is going out in a car with the intent to kill people. However the consequences of driving impaired cause a third of all traffic fatalities.
Should something more be done with laws against impaired driving?

Drunk driving penalties have grown stricter year over year for half a century. The problem with making harsher drunk driving penalties is that the crime is committed once you're at that stage. That's like arguing that the penalties for gun crimes should be made more harsh. They're already treated pretty harshly (with jail time). The issue is prevention. With drunk driving that would logically be done via awareness campaigns (constantly done), making driving difficult to engage in after consuming alcohol (virtually impossible), or drug/dependency checks being made mandatory to have a licence (economically unfeasible).

The problem with solving drunk driving is that the problem is the drinking and no one is willing to work on solving that. Drinking is a sacred passtime here. The car can't be removed because that means we're all out of a job and most of us starve to death.

This is unlike preventing firearm violence in almost every way. There is no economic structure that demands that we have guns. There are no social structures based around the distribution of weapons as there is alcohol. There are numerous and simple ways that gun ownership can be vetted and regulated so as to lower the chances of weapons being in the hands of the violent, irresponsible, or deranged (without it seriously impacting the lives of said people).

These two social issues are dramatically different and the only reason to conflate them is to make a lazy and incomplete political statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think in regards to the OP it seems like he is concerned that people are more active in regards to guns than drunk driving.

But people around here are always pushing for more laws, more education, more public awareness, interlock devices, designsted driver rewards, etc.

I have seen maybe two semi-public "get a free gun-lock" campaigns in the last year, but I constantly see anti-drunk driving campaigns.

That's a pretty correct assesment of my point.

I constantly see drunk driving campaigns. I see the ads for them on telivision. I hear them on the radio. I see them on billboards. The anti drunk driving awareness industry is an order of magnitude larger than the one for gun dangers. There is no multi billion dollar lobby protecting drunk drivers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait a second, Relapse blocked me like a year ago. Why am I even trying?