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.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

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

Guns cause nowhere near the carnage among children as alcohol:


One of the news reports about how deadly guns are that I mentioned:

http://t.nbcnews.com/health/terrible-tally-500-children-dead-gunshots-every-year-7-500-8C11469222

Now for some statistics about alcohol:


189,000 emergency room visits yearly due to alcohol related causes and over 4,000 dead:



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

 easysauce wrote:
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.

In the US car usage is limited.

Yeah, booze kills people, just like fire kills people.

Both are equally important to civilization.

Think about it; the rise of lameness and stupid bs rules and uncontrollable bureaucracy is tied intrinsically to the rise of clean drinking water and rules against drinking in public.

Before that, everyone drank at least a little throughout the day. Watered wine, a little tipple of whiskey to make the day go by... Think about it - how did a tiny lil backwater place like Europe become a world dominating power? Everyone was walking around in a mild alcoholic stupor all the time. Nothing seems impossible or even that hard when you have a little bit of booze in you. It gave Europe the chutzpah to go out and gut punch the world.

 dogma wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
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.

In the US car usage is limited.

We're rationing it.

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, booze kills people, just like fire kills people.

Both are equally important to civilization.

Think about it; the rise of lameness and stupid bs rules and uncontrollable bureaucracy is tied intrinsically to the rise of clean drinking water and rules against drinking in public.

Before that, everyone drank at least a little throughout the day. Watered wine, a little tipple of whiskey to make the day go by... Think about it - how did a tiny lil backwater place like Europe become a world dominating power? Everyone was walking around in a mild alcoholic stupor all the time. Nothing seems impossible or even that hard when you have a little bit of booze in you. It gave Europe the chutzpah to go out and gut punch the world.

You are kidding, I hope.

Relapse wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, booze kills people, just like fire kills people.

Both are equally important to civilization.

Think about it; the rise of lameness and stupid bs rules and uncontrollable bureaucracy is tied intrinsically to the rise of clean drinking water and rules against drinking in public.

Before that, everyone drank at least a little throughout the day. Watered wine, a little tipple of whiskey to make the day go by... Think about it - how did a tiny lil backwater place like Europe become a world dominating power? Everyone was walking around in a mild alcoholic stupor all the time. Nothing seems impossible or even that hard when you have a little bit of booze in you. It gave Europe the chutzpah to go out and gut punch the world.

You are kidding, I hope.

Not even a little.

 dogma wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
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.

In the US car usage is limited.

in the US, so is gun usage. so is alcohol


whats your point captain obvious? everything is limited, the right to bear arms already has significant, common sense, restrictions on it.

the point of this thread is how we decides the limits of cars/alcohol vs guns. The first two being based on scientific fact, and the other based on emotional fears, despite the former doing far more harm then the latter.


we dont reduce the speed limit every time some drunken idiots kill people in a car, as we know that that changing/adding one more law for them to break, just gives us one more ticket to write after the fact, and saves no one. all it does is make everyone else who FOLLOWS the law have to drive at an artificially reduced speed limit for no good reason, when they in fact do need to go faster.

same thing with mag caps, bullet buttons, and all the idiot talk about micro stamping guns.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm still fuzzy on your point.

Mine?

Because I mean that very often people are like. "Okay One more drink, I can handle it."
After that they get into their car and usually they get into a car crash.

Where on earth do you live that people usually get into a car crash? Last I heard the average person who gets a DUI has driven drunk over 200 times. I have no idea how you would come up with such a stat. In any case, the vast majority of people who drink and drive get away with it. I have no idea what you're talking about that they usually get into an accident. That is nonsense.

Relapse wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
You also need to look into other statistics such as the number of gun owners compared to people who drink alcohol.

47% of Americans admit to owning a gun. There are more out there that own at least one, but don't admit to it.

60% of Americans drink.

We have these statistics, yet we have 11,000 people murdered by guns a year compared to 88,000 from alcohol related causes.

This pretty much puts into perspective how dangerous gun ownership is in relation to other recreational items. The fact of the matter is, guns go beyond the area of recreation to a definite need, depending where in the country you are.. Alcohol rarely, if ever, fits that bill.

How often does the average American go shooting, versus go drinking?

I went through this before, and usually get ignored:

The average American spends something like 300 hours a year operating a motor vehicle, and exponentially more time than that involved with motor vehicles (such as pedestrians crossing the street, etc). The average American spends nowhere near that much time with firearms. Not even close. So you can't look at the comparison as a matter of X guns and Y cars versus A deaths and B deaths. You have to look at the deaths against the rate of time spend using the tools.

And when that happens, I'd bet that you find *nothing* compares to the lethality of firearms.



ALSO: this is a really tired thread. Why was it started again?

Yet you have people out there saying those who own guns are a danger to society, despite the fact that, according to you, gun owners don't use guns as much as people drink alcohol.
There are about 10% more people in the U.S. that drink than those who admit to owning guns, yet the death rate for alcohol related causes is 8 to 1 over gun related homicide.

As far as looking at the times involved in drinking versus gun use, it would seem that alcohol is a greater danger because of addiction, causing the drinker to use it more.

Just to reiterate,I am not a gun owner and I think any untimely death is horrible, whether by alcohol or gun, but there is a huge element of hypocricy with those who preach heavy gun control or abolition, yet frequently use and share alcohol.

You have made 3 distinct fallacies here. I will point them out.

Yet you have people out there saying those who own guns are a danger to society, despite the fact that, according to you, gun owners don't use guns as much as people drink alcohol

Your first fallacy. I am not those people out there. You should argue with me about what I have said, not argue with me about what someone else has said. The Dallas Cowboys do not lose to the Seahawks based on how many points the Seahawks score against the Jets.

Yet you have people out there saying those who own guns are a danger to society, despite the fact that, according to you, gun owners don't use guns as much as people drink alcohol

Your second fallacy. Whether or not guns are a danger to society is not affected by their rate of use compared to the rate of alcohol consumption. The former is a binary argument (either they are a danger or they are not) whereas the latter is a comparative argument (which one is more dangerous). That is, if a spiked baseball bat is less dangerous than a bear, that in no way means the spiked baseball bat is not dangerous.

There are about 10% more people in the U.S. that drink than those who admit to owning guns, yet the death rate for alcohol related causes is 8 to 1 over gun related homicide

Your third fallacy. Owning a gun and using a gun are two different things, just as admitting to drinking (how often? Only at Christmas? Every day? When?) is different than frequency of drinking. The entire premise of my initial post was that a comparison of "people who drink" versus gun ownership is faulty; you have to examine the frequency of intoxication versus the frequency of using the firearm. Anything less is merely a red herring.


Just to reiterate, I am a firearm owner and I support light gun control (basically mandatory safety training & thorough background checks as a requirement for licensing, and a ban on full-auto & burst fire weapons. I don't think anything beyond that is necessary or really beneficial)

VanHallan wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm still fuzzy on your point.

Mine?

Because I mean that very often people are like. "Okay One more drink, I can handle it."
After that they get into their car and usually they get into a car crash.

Where on earth do you live that people usually get into a car crash? Last I heard the average person who gets a DUI has driven drunk over 200 times. I have no idea how you would come up with such a stat. In any case, the vast majority of people who drink and drive get away with it. I have no idea what you're talking about that they usually get into an accident. That is nonsense.

1in 3 car accidents are alcohol related, resulting in over 10,000 deaths a year, so it is a big problem:

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

Aids is a big problem too, it is still complete nonsense to say that people who have unprotected sex usually get an STD, for example.

No one is saying its not a problem, I'm simply stating its complete nonsense to say that people that drink and drive usually get into a crash. That is not reality.

There is a difference betwen killing yourself through ineptitude and taking someone else's life against their will.

If 99% of gun-related deaths were suicides, no one would care.

Relapse wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

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

Guns cause nowhere near the carnage among children as alcohol:


One of the news reports about how deadly guns are that I mentioned:

http://t.nbcnews.com/health/terrible-tally-500-children-dead-gunshots-every-year-7-500-8C11469222

Now for some statistics about alcohol:


189,000 emergency room visits yearly due to alcohol related causes and over 4,000 dead:



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

Geez, way to let the joke go right past ya

VanHallan wrote:
Aids is a big problem too, it is still complete nonsense to say that people who have unprotected sex usually get an STD, for example.

No one is saying its not a problem, I'm simply stating its complete nonsense to say that people that drink and drive usually get into a crash. That is not reality.

So you totaly discount the fact that a third of all wrecks and 10,000 deaths are alcohol related. Gotcha.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
There is a difference betwen killing yourself through ineptitude and taking someone else's life against their will.

If 99% of gun-related deaths were suicides, no one would care.

60% are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

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

Guns cause nowhere near the carnage among children as alcohol:


One of the news reports about how deadly guns are that I mentioned:

http://t.nbcnews.com/health/terrible-tally-500-children-dead-gunshots-every-year-7-500-8C11469222

Now for some statistics about alcohol:


189,000 emergency room visits yearly due to alcohol related causes and over 4,000 dead:



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

Geez, way to let the joke go right past ya

Proving my earlier point that a lot of people that get uptight over gun deaths joke about people dying from alcohol.

No, you are not comprehending what I am saying.

You are talking about car accidents. I am talking about people driving in general. Maybe this will help.

# of people driving > # of people getting into accidents.

of the # of people who get into accidents, 1/3 are alcohol related.

So

# of people driving > 1/3 of # of people who get into accidents.


Saying that people who drink and drive USUALLY get into accidents would mean that people who drive to bars, sporting events, parties, or what have you USUALLY crash on the way home.

That is not true, it is an absurd conclusion to draw based on no facts whatsoever.

Regardless of what % of motorists are intoxicated when they crash, it is an obvious fact that most people who drive do not get into car accidents, sober or not.

I'm not discounting what you said at all, simply stating that it has nothing to do with the motorists who DO NOT get into accidents, which is a much higher % of the driving public.

VanHallan wrote:
No, you are not comprehending what I am saying.

You are talking about car accidents. I am talking about people driving in general. Maybe this will help.

# of people driving > # of people getting into accidents.

of the # of people who get into accidents, 1/3 are alcohol related.

So

# of people driving > 1/3 of # of people who get into accidents.


Saying that people who drink and drive USUALLY get into accidents would mean that people who drive to bars, sporting events, parties, or what have you USUALLY crash on the way home.

That is not true, it is an absurd conclusion to draw based on no facts whatsoever.

Regardless of what % of motorists are intoxicated when they crash, it is an obvious fact that most people who drive do not get into car accidents, sober or not.

I'm not discounting what you said at all, simply stating that it has nothing to do with the motorists who DO NOT get into accidents, which is a much higher % of the driving public.

Where did I say they usually get into accidents? I am stating a statistic that attributes a third of car accidents to alcohol. You 're the one who brought the term usually into the conversation.

The CDC study linked in the OP is interesting, until you look into the methodology and realize that a large portion of those 88,000 deaths are just guesses. It boils down to "if you are a woman that died of breast cancer, we will assume that x% of those deaths had something to do with alcohol and count that as an alcohol death. We will use this one study done in 96 to determine how many deaths in each category we will count as 'caused by alcohol'".

If we are counting "might have gotten breast cancer because they drank" as an alcohol death then we need to be fair and count "might have gotten lung cancer from breathing in gunpowder residue at the shooting range" and "something something lead exposure".

The CDC study you linked has the following totals for deaths that they admit can be 100% tied to alcohol use: 23,221.

You will notice that 100% able to tie 23,221 deaths to alcohol is quite a bit less than 31,672 deaths by firearm.

Of course the big one is going to be accidents. So I will let you include their guestimate of "accidents caused by alcohol" which is 12,460.

That brings our totals to:

Alcohol: 35681
Firearms: 31672

Pretty close so far.

Of course that is only one part of the equation. We also need to see how prevalent both guns and alcohol are.

I couldn't find any statistics on "percentage of people that own guns", so I went with Gallup, who placed the percentage of individual gun owners at 34.4%. I know that Relapse posted that according to that poll 47% of people reported owning a gun, but that is false. 47% of people said that somebody in their household owned a gun. Since we didn't track "households where somebody drinks" but are using "people drinking" we need to use "people owning guns" as the comparison IMO. I'm sure that will get picked apart by somebody, but so be it. Gallup also reports that 67% of the population drinks.

So:

Population drinking: 67%
Population owning firearm: 34.4%
Population dying because of alcohol: 35,681
Population dying because of firearm: 31,672
1% of the population using alcohol = 532.5 deaths
1% of the population owning a firearm = 920 deaths

If you want to include all the "maybe she had breast cancer because she drank alcohol" type deaths then you end up with a much higher number of course, but unless you include all deaths that could possibly have something to do with exposure to anything gun related (toddler drank gun oil, fell from tree-stand while hunting, etc etc etc) it's a pointless comparison.

tl;dr

statistics is boring and numbers don't mean jack

@ relapse - no, my bad. My first quote in this thread is quoting someone else. I probably shouldnt have done it. It was a post from page 1 and now that we're on page 4 it looks like im responding to you in the first place.

Miscommunication. My fault.

 easysauce wrote:

whats your point captain obvious? everything is limited, the right to bear arms already has significant, common sense, restrictions on it.

That any argument which is based on the notion that firearm ownership is not distinct from alcohol use or car use is a bad argument, especially given that we restrict both alcohol use and car use.

 easysauce wrote:

the point of this thread is how we decides the limits of cars/alcohol vs guns. The first two being based on scientific fact, and the other based on emotional fears, despite the former doing far more harm then the latter.

What scientific fact is the limitation of car use based on?

 easysauce wrote:

we dont reduce the speed limit every time some drunken idiots kill people in a car...

No, we just have a debate about whether or not the penalties for DUI are sufficient.

 dogma wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

we dont reduce the speed limit every time some drunken idiots kill people in a car...

No, we just have a debate about whether or not the penalties for DUI are sufficient.

I've never seen one here, maybe you can direct me to it?

Edit: Seems they do happen in indirect ways on here.

 d-usa wrote:

tl;dr

statistics is boring and numbers don't mean jack

There's lies... damned lies... and statistics.

amirite?

Is the point of this statistic to somehow make guns seem less dangerous?

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Is the point of this statistic to somehow make guns seem less dangerous?

In the right hands (or just sitting there, not in a hand) a gun is no more dangerous than a spoon.


Thing is, as has been pointed out, the "evil guns" make better news stories than do your "average" drunk driver or other alcohol related incident.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Is the point of this statistic to somehow make guns seem less dangerous?

In the right hands (or just sitting there, not in a hand) a gun is no more dangerous than a spoon.


Thing is, as has been pointed out, the "evil guns" make better news stories than do your "average" drunk driver or other alcohol related incident.

Unless by "in the right hands" you mean "when not in use" that statement is ridiculous, of course a weapon solely designed to injure other living things is more dangerous than an implement design to move food into your mouth.

I don't believe guns are evil or that they should be banned, in fact I'd like to see the UK ease up on how tightly controlled firearms are here, but I find it bizarre when people claim that guns are not dangerous.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Is the point of this statistic to somehow make guns seem less dangerous?

Nope, to point out the hypocricy of broadcasting organizations and others who say guns are so dangerous and should be abolished when there is a far greater yearly toll taken by alcohol. What we get in the way of alcohol information instead is mainly in the form of advertisements saying how fun it is to have around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Is the point of this statistic to somehow make guns seem less dangerous?

In the right hands (or just sitting there, not in a hand) a gun is no more dangerous than a spoon.


Thing is, as has been pointed out, the "evil guns" make better news stories than do your "average" drunk driver or other alcohol related incident.

Here's a good example of a crash that happened that was forgotten by the news in about a couple of weeks time with no yearly news commemerations like are done with a school shooting yet a large number people died in a ghastly fashion because of a drunk driver:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrollton,_Kentucky_bus_collision

 Corpsesarefun wrote:


Unless by "in the right hands" you mean "when not in use" that statement is ridiculous, of course a weapon solely designed to injure other living things is more dangerous than an implement design to move food into your mouth.

How is it ridiculous? A firearm's sole design is to propel a projectile at a high velocity. I decide what it's use is. People who overeat are a danger to themselves (and by extension, others), just as if I have intent to aim/fire a firearm at someone then I am posing a significant danger to the person. It's exactly the same if I were holding a baseball bat, ax, mace, sword, or hand grenade.



Again, the reason why guns seem to be such a big deal, and almost any time they are used, become national headlines (whether they should be or not), is because events like the mass shootings happen so rarely compared to alcohol fueled events, and certainly, people who are left-leaning, and have no real life exposure to firearms are afraid of them.

Pretending that guns are not for injuring people/animals is precisely the ridiculous thing. Do you really believe the people that produce and purchase firearms do so for the novelty of moving a small projectile?

Guns are a big deal because they are currently the most effective commonly available weapon, there is nothing wrong with admitting that. Weapon is not a dirty word

The people that produce firearms do so to make money. the people who buy them have their own purpose in mind.

Yes, some buy them with the intent of injuring/killing things. It is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. The outcome desired from the purchase of a firearm is purely with the person who has bought it.


Can you say the same for people who buy alcohol? Aside from the medical grade "rubbing alcohol" what genuine purpose does alcohol serve? a Starter Gun is routinely used for track and field events, and other racing type events. What does a 5th of Vodka do? It's SOLE purpose is to inebriate people. And with inebriation comes more issues, like we see in spousal/child abuse, drunk driving, etc. It, again, boils down to an intent issue.

Corpsesarefun wrote:Is the point of this statistic to somehow make guns seem less dangerous?

Yes. That is exactly what the OP's misguided intention appears to be.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Corpsesarefun wrote:Is the point of this statistic to somehow make guns seem less dangerous?

Yes. That is exactly what the OP's misguided intention appears to be.

To repeat for the fourth or fith time from other posts this thread where I stated the same thing,


I....am.....pointing.......out.......hypocricy



It has nothing to do with trying to make guns seem safer.