Where's the outrage on this?

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.

**KalashnikovMarine**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Smacks wrote:
I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?

This argument comes up from our friends in the Commonwealth so often that I'm forced to conclude the only thing stopping you guys from constantly killing each other over petty arguments is the lack of readily available weaponry.

I concur. I carry every day, I doubt any one around me has a clue I have a weapon on me. I have arguments just the same as any one else... but why would I shoot them if I'm just explaining they're an idiot? I'd rather avoid making a complete ass of myself and getting into a fist fight but you know, I suppose if that's just the cultural thing for the English, go to the pub have a pint, chat up a girl, buy her a strongbow, punch someone for the hell of it, you do what you do.

I personally don't buy the "escalation" theory by and large, because with the sheer amount of firearms in American hands, the population of this country would at least be reduced by half by this point.

It's also worth noting that every time you drive a car you're taking the absolute power of life or death into your hands... or clench your firsts, or pick up a bat (cricket, baseball, take your pick), hammers, handle any form of sharp object etc. We're remarkably fragile creatures. Take some basic medical classes, it's surprising. Eight pounds of pressure to snap a human neck, get a cut in the right extremely shallow place and you bleed out in second and so forth. So I suppose the real question for the commonwealth side of this particular argument, if the power of life and death over others is such a massive deal, why are you constantly terrified of the world around you, and have you considered a gerbil for your national mascot instead of a bulldog along with some downers to relax you?

If it's that easy to defend oneself, why do you need guns?

Me personally? It's the great equalizer. Unless you're blind or have terrible hand tremors any one can become skilled with a firearm and successfully defend themselves. It completely divorces the old rule of the world, that innate physical strength would rule the day. With a gun in hand any one from me, to a 100lb woman, to an eleven year old, to my white haired Irish granny can successfully defend themselves against the thug du jour. No matter how big, or mean or strong he might be. 100% level playing field. It also multiplies my combat power against multiple aggressors where before all but the most skilled or most physically able could fight off multiple people.

I'd say Kendra St. Clair would agree with me:

Kendra St. Clair, 12, was at home alone in Oklahoma, when loud banging began on the door to her family's home. Soon, the glass shattered and an intruder had entered.
"I was scared and I didn't know what to do next," Kendra told ABC News.
Petrified, she called her mom Debra.
"I said Kendra get the gun and go get in my closet now. And call 911."
The young 6th grader followed her mom's orders to the tee.
The 911 tapes tell the story as it unfolded.
Kendra: "I'm at my house. I'm in my closet. And I ran away from (inaudible) someone's trying to get into my house and I do not know who they are." Dispatcher: "Ok I have a deputy en route, I want you to stay on the phone with me. Ok?" Kendra: "Ok. Please. I think they are in the house."
Kendra had taken shelter in a closet, clutching her mother's .40 caliber glock gun while she listened to the intruder make his way around her home.
Kendra: "Please help me. Please." Dispatcher: "Alright, alright. I understand. Do you still have your mom's gun there?" Kendra: "Yes I do. I have it in my hand."
Her fear intensified to sheer terror, when she saw the knob of the closet door beginning to turn.
At that point, that for the first time in her life, Kendra fired a gun.
Police said the bullet traveled straight through the closet door and struck 32-year-old Stacey Jones in the shoulder, scaring him out of the house.
They arrested him a few blocks away and charged Jones with first degree burglary.
"When I had the gun, I didn't think I was actually going to have to shoot somebody," the 6th grader recalled. "I think it's going to change me a whole lot, knowing that I can hold my head up high and nothing can hurt me anymore."

Full story: http://abcnews.go.com/US/kendra-st-clair-oklahoma-girl-12-shoots-intruder/story?id=17524438

Or this young man from Texas who took up his father's rifle to defend his sister and the family home from a pair of burglars.

The teenage son of a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy shot a home intruder Tuesday afternoon in the 2600 block of Royal Place in northwest Harris County, deputies said.

The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window.

The teenager grabbed his father's assault rifle and knew what to do with it.

Full story: http://nation.foxnews.com/crime/2013/01/10/15-year-old-defends-home-against-burglars-shoots-one-them-fathers-ar-15

Heart strings because these are stories about kids? Sure I'll accept that criticism.

Mother of two defending her kids? http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/ we've seen this one before but it still gets the point across. These situations and many hundreds of thousands of others for hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens, male, female, young and old, would not have ended well for any one but the scum bags had they been disarmed.

**Smacks**

Seaward wrote:
Smacks wrote:
Guns are weapons, designed to kill and injure. That is their purpose. And they are really good at it.

Yes, and there are 300 million of them in this country. Simply declaring them to be icky does not magically make them disappear. Protesting that you do not believe in firearm violence is a pretty low percentage shot in terms of dissuading an armed attacker.

I agree. It could take centuries for the US to get guns under control. But I don't know if "so lets not bother" is constructive either.

Then we have statements like these...
Seaward wrote:
I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.

What's wrong with that statement?

Nothing at all, I wasn't criticising you. It just demonstrates the power of the weapon, and how quickly someone with poor judgement could take everything away from you. I'm not saying you guys have poor judgement. But you know there are idiots outs there... they're everywhere.

**Seaward**

Smacks wrote:
I agree. It could take centuries for the US to get guns under control. But I don't know if "so lets not bother" is constructive either.

I think we have guns under pretty decent control right now. Probably about the best we can hope for.

**Kilkrazy**

Sure, it is clearly worse in places like South Africa. It will be interesting to see if they can get their gun problem under control.

**dæl**

Seaward wrote:

I think we have guns under pretty decent control right now.

That's demonstrably not true, otherwise this subject wouldn't be being debated. It does seems to me the problem is more to do with culture than proliferation of weapons, other countries have similar numbers of guns but don't have anywhere near the number of tragedies in schools, but if access to these weapons were restricted then there wouldn't be as many shootings. Perhaps the "pro-gun" lobby should start offering solutions to this problem rather than screeching THEY TRYIN TO TAKE OUR GUNS.

**Seaward**

dæl wrote:
That's demonstrably not true, otherwise this subject wouldn't be being debated. It does seems to me the problem is more to do with culture than proliferation of weapons, other countries have similar numbers of guns but don't have anywhere near the number of tragedies in schools, but if access to these weapons were restricted then there wouldn't be as many shootings. Perhaps the "pro-gun" lobby should start offering solutions to this problem rather than screeching THEY TRYIN TO TAKE OUR GUNS.

No. No one has anywhere near our number of guns. The next closest is Serbia, and they're very, very far behind.

The pro-gun lobby has offered solutions. None of them satisfy the misguided urges of the anti-gun lobby, so they will not be adopted. Aside from the ones proposed already by Democrats like Bill Clinton, that is, such as putting armed guards in schools.

**dæl**

Seaward wrote:
dæl wrote:
That's demonstrably not true, otherwise this subject wouldn't be being debated. It does seems to me the problem is more to do with culture than proliferation of weapons, other countries have similar numbers of guns but don't have anywhere near the number of tragedies in schools, but if access to these weapons were restricted then there wouldn't be as many shootings. Perhaps the "pro-gun" lobby should start offering solutions to this problem rather than screeching THEY TRYIN TO TAKE OUR GUNS.

No. No one has anywhere near our number of guns. The next closest is Serbia, and they're very, very far behind.

The pro-gun lobby has offered solutions. None of them satisfy the misguided urges of the anti-gun lobby, so they will not be adopted. Aside from the ones proposed already by Democrats like Bill Clinton, that is, such as putting armed guards in schools.

I was under the impression that Sweden and Switzerland had similar levels of guns per person, its seems not from a quick look at the facts. Switzerland had much higher rates as its population were a militia, but that seems to no longer be the case.

What solutions have been offered? Other than more guns in schools, because that will just move the issue elsewhere.

**Relapse**

Interesting how guns are being villainized and many people here are saying to outlaw or heavily control them. Alcohol and drugs kill as many or more people, not even talking about traffic fatalities or murders because of them, and take as heavy an emotional toll on the lives they impact, yet people are all for them being legal and brag about how much they drink.
Why?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some stats from the CDC:

underage drinking:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm

80,000 deaths per year due to a alcohol:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alcohol Use and Health
There are approximately 80,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States.1 This makes excessive alcohol use the 3r d leading lifestyle-related cause of death for the nation.2 Excessive alcohol use is responsible for 2.3 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) annually, or an average of about 30 years of potential life lost for each death.1 In 2006, there were more than 1.2 million emergency room visits and 2.7 million physician office visits due to excessive drinking.3 The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006 were estimated at $223.5 billion.3

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fire arm homicides:

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

Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,078
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6

**dogma**

Relapse wrote:
Interesting how guns are being villainized and many people here are saying to outlaw or heavily control them. Alcohol and drugs kill as many or more people, not even talking about traffic fatalities or murders because of them, and take as heavy an emotional toll on the lives they impact, yet people are all for them being legal and brag about how much they drink.
Why?

Because alcohol and drugs bring people joy.

More properly, there are certain contributing factors to death that any given society will choose to accept, for any number of reasons. We (the US) accept drugs, alcohol, cars, cheeseburgers, and numerous other things. Most of us also accept guns but, being the liberal democracy that we are, debate persists.

**Relapse**

dogma wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Interesting how guns are being villainized and many people here are saying to outlaw or heavily control them. Alcohol and drugs kill as many or more people, not even talking about traffic fatalities or murders because of them, and take as heavy an emotional toll on the lives they impact, yet people are all for them being legal and brag about how much they drink.
Why?

Because alcohol and drugs bring people joy.

So do guns with a lot less harm to people.

**dogma**

Relapse wrote:

So do guns....

You probably don't want to compare the joy of owning/firing a gun to the joy of smoking pot, or boozing. That would imply that guns alter one's state of mind.

Relapse wrote:

...with a lot less harm to people.

See, the problem is assuming that "years lived" is a reasonable metric by which to assess health. I always hated that the CDC did that.

**Relapse**

dogma wrote:
Relapse wrote:

So do guns.

You probably don't want to compare the joy of owning/firing a gun to the joy of smoking pot, or boozing. That would imply that guns alter one's state of mind.

Different joys for different boys.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously, though, 80,000 deaths compared to 11,000?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is also the millions of visits to doctors and ER's due to alcohol use.

**Kilkrazy**

Better ban hospitals too. There are suspiciously high numbers of deaths in them.

It is complete hypocrisy to complain about road deaths and ignore hospital deaths.

**Relapse**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Better ban hospitals too. There are suspiciously high numbers of deaths in them.

It is complete hypocrisy to complain about road deaths and ignore hospital deaths.

Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.
I just want to know why people don't have the level of anger against something that is proven far more dangerous than guns.
I think Dogma pretty well has the right of it, but it just seems strange to me. Kind of like getting upset over a campfire when the house is burning down behind you.

**dogma**

Relapse wrote:

Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.

The same is true of sexual intercourse.

**Relapse**

dogma wrote:
Relapse wrote:

Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.

The same is true of sexual intercourse.

Actually it is for the survival of the species.

**Cheesecat**

Relapse wrote:
dogma wrote:
Relapse wrote:

Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.

The same is true of sexual intercourse.

Actually it is for the survival of the species.

No some people do it purely for pleasure.

**hotsauceman1**

Ok, Im not a real Staunch proponent of gun control.
But you cannot compare drugs and Alchohol to Guns. ITs like comparing Elvis too Humphrey Bogart.
1: Guns are made for killing. That is what they are for. Drugs are made for people to get high.
2: When someone takes a drugs, they are, for the most part, physically harming themselves. When someone has a gun, and intent on using it in a harmful way, they are harming mostly others.

**Relapse**

Cheesecat wrote:
Relapse wrote:
dogma wrote:
Relapse wrote:

Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.

The same is true of sexual intercourse.

Actually it is for the survival of the species.

No some people do it purely for pleasure.

We could go round with you putting up straw men but the fact remains people are against guns all out of proportion to the damage they do compaired to alcohol and illegal drugs.

I didn't even bother looking up illegal drugs because 80,000 deaths from alcohol alone dwarfs the number of people killed by guns. Yet people don't think twice about drinking or giving drinks to others but get all bent out of shape because 11, 000 people were killed because of guns.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, Im not a real Staunch proponent of gun control.
But you cannot compare drugs and Alchohol to Guns. ITs like comparing Elvis too Humphrey Bogart.
1: Guns are made for killing. That is what they are for. Drugs are made for people to get high.
2: When someone takes a drugs, they are, for the most part, physically harming themselves. When someone has a gun, and intent on using it in a harmful way, they are harming mostly others.

Actually, over 11,000 people were killed because of impaired drivers, not even going into others were killed because someone was drunk or high. When someone gets drunk or uses drugs they have the potential to harm others, not to mention the Hell Mexico has turned into with tens of tnousands of deaths a year because of the drug trade.
The two are very much comparable

**Cheesecat**

Relapse wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
Relapse wrote:
dogma wrote:
Relapse wrote:

Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.

The same is true of sexual intercourse.

Actually it is for the survival of the species.

No some people do it purely for pleasure.

We could go round with you putting up straw men but the fact remains people are against guns all out of proportion to the damage they do compaired to alcohol and illegal drugs.

I didn't even bother looking up illegal drugs because 80,000 deaths from alcohol alone dwarfs the number of people killed by guns. Yet people don't think twice about drinking or giving drinks to others but get all bent out of shape because 11, 000 people were killed because of guns.

Because drinking related deaths aren't really relevant to a discussion about gun crime plus the concern with US gun crime isn't the fact that it's the #1 killer in US it's the fact that there is significantly more gun related deaths in the US than any other high-income nation in the world.

**Relapse**

Cheesecat wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
Relapse wrote:
dogma wrote:
Relapse wrote:

Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.

The same is true of sexual intercourse.

Actually it is for the survival of the species.

No some people do it purely for pleasure.

We could go round with you putting up straw men but the fact remains people are against guns all out of proportion to the damage they do compaired to alcohol and illegal drugs.

I didn't even bother looking up illegal drugs because 80,000 deaths from alcohol alone dwarfs the number of people killed by guns. Yet people don't think twice about drinking or giving drinks to others but get all bent out of shape because 11, 000 people were killed because of guns.

Because drinking related deaths aren't really relevant to a discussion about gun crime plus the concern with US gun crime isn't the fact that it's the #1 killer in US it's the fact that there is significantly more gun related deaths in the US than any other high-income nation in the world.

The discussion on this thread, however, is why are people so upset about gun deaths and at the same willing to turn a blind eye to the far greater number of deaths, either to the users or others, caused by the desire to get high or drunk.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Relapse wrote:

Actually, over 11,000 people were killed because of impaired drivers, not even going into others were killed because someone was drunk or high. When someone gets drunk or uses drugs they have the potential to harm others, not to mention the Hell Mexico has turned into with tens of tnousands of deaths a year because of the drug trade.
The two are very much comparable

Again, the difference being that guns are meant to kill or injure. The main uses of alcohol and drugs aren't.

And for the record, I don't drink and don't think that recreational drugs should be allowed.

**Relapse**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Relapse wrote:

Actually, over 11,000 people were killed because of impaired drivers, not even going into others were killed because someone was drunk or high. When someone gets drunk or uses drugs they have the potential to harm others, not to mention the Hell Mexico has turned into with tens of tnousands of deaths a year because of the drug trade.
The two are very much comparable

Again, the difference being that guns are meant to kill or injure. The main uses of alcohol and drugs aren't.

And for the record, I don't drink and don't think that recreational drugs should be allowed.

That says a bit right there. Something people use for recreational purposes, and I'll count drugs and alcohol together, is the cause of at least 5 times more deaths than something you say is meant to kill.

**Kovnik Obama**

Relapse wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Better ban hospitals too. There are suspiciously high numbers of deaths in them.

It is complete hypocrisy to complain about road deaths and ignore hospital deaths.

Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.

Absolutely false, alcohol have saved human populations from many diseases over the ages. If you ever doubt the quality of the water you are forced to drinking, a rather effective method of purifying it is to cut hard alcohol with it.

**Relapse**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Better ban hospitals too. There are suspiciously high numbers of deaths in them.

It is complete hypocrisy to complain about road deaths and ignore hospital deaths.

Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.

Absolutely false, alcohol have saved human populations from many diseases over the ages. If you ever doubt the quality of the water you are forced to drinking, a rather effective method of purifying it is to cut hard alcohol with it.

We are talking about inside the US during this century. I was wrong about 5 times the number of people killed because of drugs and alcohol compaired to the number of people killed by guns however. The difference is more like 8 times.

**Smacks**

Relapse wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Relapse wrote:

Actually, over 11,000 people were killed because of impaired drivers, not even going into others were killed because someone was drunk or high. When someone gets drunk or uses drugs they have the potential to harm others, not to mention the Hell Mexico has turned into with tens of tnousands of deaths a year because of the drug trade.
The two are very much comparable

Again, the difference being that guns are meant to kill or injure. The main uses of alcohol and drugs aren't.

And for the record, I don't drink and don't think that recreational drugs should be allowed.

That says a bit right there. Something people use for recreational purposes, and I'll count drugs and alcohol together, is the cause of at least 5 times more deaths than something you say is meant to kill.

The difference is that those deaths are usually accidents. More people die putting their socks on each year than are killed by sharks. But that just demonstrates the flaw in these kind of statistics. Are you going to tell me socks are more dangerous than sharks? They are not, they just happen to have about a billion times more contact with people. So freak sock related accident outnumber shark attack (which would probably be more frequent if sharks didn't have the advantage of being not where we are almost all of the time).

The same thing comes up with sport. More people die playing rugby and skiing than boxing. Again the intention is different, those deaths are accidents. Boxing related deaths are caused by injuries that are deliberately inflicted. There is an important difference.

**Relapse**

Smacks wrote:
Relapse wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Relapse wrote:

Actually, over 11,000 people were killed because of impaired drivers, not even going into others were killed because someone was drunk or high. When someone gets drunk or uses drugs they have the potential to harm others, not to mention the Hell Mexico has turned into with tens of tnousands of deaths a year because of the drug trade.
The two are very much comparable

Again, the difference being that guns are meant to kill or injure. The main uses of alcohol and drugs aren't.

And for the record, I don't drink and don't think that recreational drugs should be allowed.

That says a bit right there. Something people use for recreational purposes, and I'll count drugs and alcohol together, is the cause of at least 5 times more deaths than something you say is meant to kill.

The difference is that those deaths are usually accidents. More people die putting their socks on each year than are killed by sharks. But that just demonstrates the flaw in these kind of statistics. Are you going to tell me socks are more dangerous than sharks? They are not, they just happen to have about a billion times more contact with people. So freak sock related accident outnumber shark attack (which would probably be more frequent if sharks didn't have the advantage of being not where we are almost all of the time).

The same thing comes up with sport. More people die playing rugby and skiing than boxing. Again the intention is different, those deaths are accidents. Boxing related deaths are caused by injuries that are deliberately inflicted. There is an important difference.

Just to remind you, the thread is about alcohol and drug related deaths in the US as compared to gun deaths. If over 80,000 people died due to putting on socks, I'd dare say we'd all be concerned. Accidental or not, the education and statistics are out there to show it's more dangerous to drink or use drugs than to own a gun, yet people seem determined to defend drinking and drugs while condemming gun ownership.

**azazel the cat**

Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't about defence. It is about cultural beliefs and attitudes.

Yes. And I could easily accept this and be done with it all, if the hardcore guns-and-paranoia side (I won't say pro-gun, because I am pro-gun) would just give up their rhetoric and admit that they are basically just worshippers of Zardoz.

**Relapse**

azazel the cat wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't about defence. It is about cultural beliefs and attitudes.

Yes. And I could easily accept this and be done with it all, if the hardcore guns-and-paranoia side (I won't say pro-gun, because I am pro-gun) would just give up their rhetoric and admit that they are basically just worshippers of Zardoz.

Would that mean they'd have to dress like Sean Connery did in the movie?

**Smacks**

Relapse wrote:
Accidental or not, the education and statistics are out there to show it's more dangerous to drink or use drugs than to own a gun

But it doesn't show that it is more dangerous, it only shows that there are more deaths. But this is like comparing apples with oranges. Pretty much everything is more dangerous than owning a gun, if the gun is locked up tight in a safe the whole time. Even putting socks on.

What we are concerned about are those other times when guns are in peoples hands and being fired at other people. At those times guns become an order of magnitude more dangerous.