Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On February 21 2012 05:18 Djzapz wrote: [quote] California's bad but not that bad. It has the most murders by gun but it's because it's the biggest state. Louisiana, Missouri and Maryland are pretty bad =P
[quote] Yeah, it does :o
But why focus on guns when alcohol kills so many more people? If you're interested in saving lives, why not save as many as possible.
Hypothetical time: You manage to get rid of all the guns in the country, every last one. You save 30,000 lives every year. BUT, if instead you had focused on getting rid of every last drop of drinkable alcohol (industrial alcohol can stay), you would have saved 100,000 lives every year. Even some of the lives lost to guns would be saved, since the guy with gun wasn't drunk this time around.
100,000 > 30,000
We established that the number of deaths is not the sole means of establishing how bad something is. Cars kill a lot of people too but like I said, it's not all about numbers. Who dies is a big deal, and what are the other effects of the thing also matters.
Cars kill, but they're also useful. It's a very morbid tradeoff that may not be easy to mention in a politically correct way, but it's a reality.
What legitimate uses does alcohol have? Certainly not as many as cars. The only good that can be said of alcohol, is that it can be fun to drink sometimes. That's it.
In profoundly individualistic society like ours, good ole' alcohol is an amazing hub for socializing with people that we'd outright ignore in our day to day lives. It's a huge deal IMO! It's how many couples are made
Socializing happened for hundreds of years before the concept of bars and pubs, and would continue to happen without them.
I would also argue that given the huge populations and already-strained infrastructure of many developed countries today, the population growth that comes with this socialization is actually a bad thing, but that's a discussion for another thread, or PM's if you care enough about it.
Societies have never been as individualistic as they are now, dynamics for socializing are different.
Most bars don't make their money on the beer they sell, they make it on the food they sell. If people want that kind of social atmosphere, not having alcohol will not prevent it.
I'm skeptical of the first part of that, I don't really believe that "most bars" make more money on the food. Anyway, IMO you severely underestimate the importance of alcohol in socialization. It does play a big role I think.
On February 21 2012 05:28 Millitron wrote: [quote] But why focus on guns when alcohol kills so many more people? If you're interested in saving lives, why not save as many as possible.
Hypothetical time: You manage to get rid of all the guns in the country, every last one. You save 30,000 lives every year. BUT, if instead you had focused on getting rid of every last drop of drinkable alcohol (industrial alcohol can stay), you would have saved 100,000 lives every year. Even some of the lives lost to guns would be saved, since the guy with gun wasn't drunk this time around.
100,000 > 30,000
We established that the number of deaths is not the sole means of establishing how bad something is. Cars kill a lot of people too but like I said, it's not all about numbers. Who dies is a big deal, and what are the other effects of the thing also matters.
Cars kill, but they're also useful. It's a very morbid tradeoff that may not be easy to mention in a politically correct way, but it's a reality.
What legitimate uses does alcohol have? Certainly not as many as cars. The only good that can be said of alcohol, is that it can be fun to drink sometimes. That's it.
In profoundly individualistic society like ours, good ole' alcohol is an amazing hub for socializing with people that we'd outright ignore in our day to day lives. It's a huge deal IMO! It's how many couples are made
Socializing happened for hundreds of years before the concept of bars and pubs, and would continue to happen without them.
I would also argue that given the huge populations and already-strained infrastructure of many developed countries today, the population growth that comes with this socialization is actually a bad thing, but that's a discussion for another thread, or PM's if you care enough about it.
Societies have never been as individualistic as they are now, dynamics for socializing are different.
Most bars don't make their money on the beer they sell, they make it on the food they sell. If people want that kind of social atmosphere, not having alcohol will not prevent it.
I'm skeptical of the first part of that, I don't really believe that "most bars" make more money on the food. Anyway, IMO you severely underestimate the importance of alcohol in socialization. It does play a big role I think.
But you assume two things.
First, that nothing would replace it.
Second, that we need the socialization.
I think it's fair to assume both. =)
I don't know man. There are plenty of places where people don't drink alcohol.
It's not the guns that are a problem. If I was being held hostage, I'm not going to be afraid of the gun, its the asshole who's holding the gun that's going to kill me. Firearms aren't the problem, crazy people are the problem. Why should my rights be taken away because crazy people are going to do crazy things. If some one is not morally opposed to killing some one else, no amount of regulation is going stop them. So why strip people's rights, if the people who are going to commit violent crimes are going to commit violent crimes regardless of how easy/hard obtaining fire arms is?
I'm not going to give a step by step blueprint, but even if you can do the impossible, and destroy every gun that isn't in the hands of law enforcement or military, how long do you think it would take some guy with a machine shop to make a firearm? Hell after everybody's firearms are destroyed a guy like that could make a ton of money just selling illegal weapons to people. Look at what happened during prohibition. All the alcohol is poured down the drain, a black market for alcohol is born. This inevitably leads to more violent crimes because now the only way to obtain a firearm is going to some one with a loose set of morals, which don't stop them from breaking any law on the books.
tl;dr FYI banning the possession of firearms just leads to more violent crimes.
On February 21 2012 05:42 Djzapz wrote: [quote] We established that the number of deaths is not the sole means of establishing how bad something is. Cars kill a lot of people too but like I said, it's not all about numbers. Who dies is a big deal, and what are the other effects of the thing also matters.
Cars kill, but they're also useful. It's a very morbid tradeoff that may not be easy to mention in a politically correct way, but it's a reality.
What legitimate uses does alcohol have? Certainly not as many as cars. The only good that can be said of alcohol, is that it can be fun to drink sometimes. That's it.
In profoundly individualistic society like ours, good ole' alcohol is an amazing hub for socializing with people that we'd outright ignore in our day to day lives. It's a huge deal IMO! It's how many couples are made
Socializing happened for hundreds of years before the concept of bars and pubs, and would continue to happen without them.
I would also argue that given the huge populations and already-strained infrastructure of many developed countries today, the population growth that comes with this socialization is actually a bad thing, but that's a discussion for another thread, or PM's if you care enough about it.
Societies have never been as individualistic as they are now, dynamics for socializing are different.
Most bars don't make their money on the beer they sell, they make it on the food they sell. If people want that kind of social atmosphere, not having alcohol will not prevent it.
I'm skeptical of the first part of that, I don't really believe that "most bars" make more money on the food. Anyway, IMO you severely underestimate the importance of alcohol in socialization. It does play a big role I think.
But you assume two things.
First, that nothing would replace it.
Second, that we need the socialization.
I think it's fair to assume both. =)
I don't know man. There are plenty of places where people don't drink alcohol.
Well let's take the middle eastern countries for instance where people basically don't drink for the most part. Those societies are significantly more holistic (less individualist) - you go in stores and you talk to the "clerk" who's not so much a clerk to you as a member of your society.
Here, the cashier is a machine and he allows me to make a transaction with a big corp led by people who are more or less aware of our existence.
The two societies have very different means of socializing. If you take alcohol out of the equation here, we won't transform into their society.
On February 21 2012 06:17 Focuspants wrote: Bars make most of their money on alcohol not food. The margin of profit on alcohol is FAR higher than on food, and the quantity sold is also FAR higher.
Alcohol and firearms cant be compared to each other. Its a useless argument. You cant point a bottle of beer at someone, press it with 1 finger, and end their life. Their are a multitude of factors that may lead to someone indirectly "using" alcohol to eventually kill someone or themself. Guns are killing tools. One that requires very little personal contact. Its a fact that guns are more lethal than fists, knives, bottles, bats, etc... and the act of shooting someone is much easier than staring someone in the eyes as you physically assault or stab them at close range.
Alcohol is not directly used or designed to kill something, guns are. This argument is pointless.
100,000 people die due to alcohol in the US every year. 30,000 people die to guns in the US every year.
Why get rid of the one that causes way fewer deaths, while just ignoring the one that causes way more deaths?
If you want to save lives, getting rid of alcohol saves 70 thousand more lives every year than getting rid of guns does.
On February 21 2012 05:58 Millitron wrote: [quote] What legitimate uses does alcohol have? Certainly not as many as cars. The only good that can be said of alcohol, is that it can be fun to drink sometimes. That's it.
In profoundly individualistic society like ours, good ole' alcohol is an amazing hub for socializing with people that we'd outright ignore in our day to day lives. It's a huge deal IMO! It's how many couples are made
Socializing happened for hundreds of years before the concept of bars and pubs, and would continue to happen without them.
I would also argue that given the huge populations and already-strained infrastructure of many developed countries today, the population growth that comes with this socialization is actually a bad thing, but that's a discussion for another thread, or PM's if you care enough about it.
Societies have never been as individualistic as they are now, dynamics for socializing are different.
Most bars don't make their money on the beer they sell, they make it on the food they sell. If people want that kind of social atmosphere, not having alcohol will not prevent it.
I'm skeptical of the first part of that, I don't really believe that "most bars" make more money on the food. Anyway, IMO you severely underestimate the importance of alcohol in socialization. It does play a big role I think.
But you assume two things.
First, that nothing would replace it.
Second, that we need the socialization.
I think it's fair to assume both. =)
I don't know man. There are plenty of places where people don't drink alcohol.
Well let's take the middle eastern countries for instance where people basically don't drink for the most part. Those societies are significantly more holistic (less individualist) - you go in stores and you talk to the "clerk" who's not so much a clerk to you as a member of your society.
Here, the cashier is a machine and he allows me to make a transaction with a big corp led by people who are more or less aware of our existence.
The two societies have very different means of socializing. If you take alcohol out of the equation here, we won't transform into their society.
Socializing is in human nature. It won't just up and stop just because you take away alcohol, and if it does slow down, maybe that's a good thing. Do we really want drunken frat-boys meeting girls and making the next generation of drunken frat-boys?
On February 21 2012 05:58 Millitron wrote: [quote] What legitimate uses does alcohol have? Certainly not as many as cars. The only good that can be said of alcohol, is that it can be fun to drink sometimes. That's it.
In profoundly individualistic society like ours, good ole' alcohol is an amazing hub for socializing with people that we'd outright ignore in our day to day lives. It's a huge deal IMO! It's how many couples are made
Socializing happened for hundreds of years before the concept of bars and pubs, and would continue to happen without them.
I would also argue that given the huge populations and already-strained infrastructure of many developed countries today, the population growth that comes with this socialization is actually a bad thing, but that's a discussion for another thread, or PM's if you care enough about it.
Societies have never been as individualistic as they are now, dynamics for socializing are different.
Most bars don't make their money on the beer they sell, they make it on the food they sell. If people want that kind of social atmosphere, not having alcohol will not prevent it.
I'm skeptical of the first part of that, I don't really believe that "most bars" make more money on the food. Anyway, IMO you severely underestimate the importance of alcohol in socialization. It does play a big role I think.
But you assume two things.
First, that nothing would replace it.
Second, that we need the socialization.
I think it's fair to assume both. =)
I don't know man. There are plenty of places where people don't drink alcohol.
Well let's take the middle eastern countries for instance where people basically don't drink for the most part. Those societies are significantly more holistic (less individualist) - you go in stores and you talk to the "clerk" who's not so much a clerk to you as a member of your society.
Here, the cashier is a machine and he allows me to make a transaction with a big corp led by people who are more or less aware of our existence.
The two societies have very different means of socializing. If you take alcohol out of the equation here, we won't transform into their society.
It's not just the middle east, there are still lots of areas here in the US that are completely dry. I also don't see how individualism means you need alcohol to socialize.
On February 21 2012 06:00 Djzapz wrote: [quote] In profoundly individualistic society like ours, good ole' alcohol is an amazing hub for socializing with people that we'd outright ignore in our day to day lives. It's a huge deal IMO! It's how many couples are made
Socializing happened for hundreds of years before the concept of bars and pubs, and would continue to happen without them.
I would also argue that given the huge populations and already-strained infrastructure of many developed countries today, the population growth that comes with this socialization is actually a bad thing, but that's a discussion for another thread, or PM's if you care enough about it.
Societies have never been as individualistic as they are now, dynamics for socializing are different.
Most bars don't make their money on the beer they sell, they make it on the food they sell. If people want that kind of social atmosphere, not having alcohol will not prevent it.
I'm skeptical of the first part of that, I don't really believe that "most bars" make more money on the food. Anyway, IMO you severely underestimate the importance of alcohol in socialization. It does play a big role I think.
But you assume two things.
First, that nothing would replace it.
Second, that we need the socialization.
I think it's fair to assume both. =)
I don't know man. There are plenty of places where people don't drink alcohol.
Well let's take the middle eastern countries for instance where people basically don't drink for the most part. Those societies are significantly more holistic (less individualist) - you go in stores and you talk to the "clerk" who's not so much a clerk to you as a member of your society.
Here, the cashier is a machine and he allows me to make a transaction with a big corp led by people who are more or less aware of our existence.
The two societies have very different means of socializing. If you take alcohol out of the equation here, we won't transform into their society.
It's not just the middle east, there are still lots of areas here in the US that are completely dry. I also don't see how individualism means you need alcohol to socialize.
It doesn't mean that you "need" alcohol to socialize but it's one of the big things that brings people together in the Occident.
On February 21 2012 06:17 Focuspants wrote: Bars make most of their money on alcohol not food. The margin of profit on alcohol is FAR higher than on food, and the quantity sold is also FAR higher.
Alcohol and firearms cant be compared to each other. Its a useless argument. You cant point a bottle of beer at someone, press it with 1 finger, and end their life. Their are a multitude of factors that may lead to someone indirectly "using" alcohol to eventually kill someone or themself. Guns are killing tools. One that requires very little personal contact. Its a fact that guns are more lethal than fists, knives, bottles, bats, etc... and the act of shooting someone is much easier than staring someone in the eyes as you physically assault or stab them at close range.
Alcohol is not directly used or designed to kill something, guns are. This argument is pointless.
100,000 people die due to alcohol in the US every year. 30,000 people die to guns in the US every year.
Why get rid of the one that causes way fewer deaths, while just ignoring the one that causes way more deaths?
If you want to save lives, getting rid of alcohol saves 70 thousand more lives every year than getting rid of guns does.
"Alcohol is a factor in" is the correct statement. Cars kill more people than alcohol, why not ban cars? The point is, that cars, alcohol, etc... are not DESIGNED to kill things. Other factors you need to look into are how many people actually drink alcohol vs how many own/use guns. Same with cars. You cant line up the stats like that.
None of that matters though, because the point is, one is NOT designed to kill people, the other IS.
If an organization arrived at my house looking for firearms to confiscate saying "only we can have guns, this is for your protection", I wouldn't believe them.
On February 21 2012 06:17 Focuspants wrote: Bars make most of their money on alcohol not food. The margin of profit on alcohol is FAR higher than on food, and the quantity sold is also FAR higher.
Alcohol and firearms cant be compared to each other. Its a useless argument. You cant point a bottle of beer at someone, press it with 1 finger, and end their life. Their are a multitude of factors that may lead to someone indirectly "using" alcohol to eventually kill someone or themself. Guns are killing tools. One that requires very little personal contact. Its a fact that guns are more lethal than fists, knives, bottles, bats, etc... and the act of shooting someone is much easier than staring someone in the eyes as you physically assault or stab them at close range.
Alcohol is not directly used or designed to kill something, guns are. This argument is pointless.
100,000 people die due to alcohol in the US every year. 30,000 people die to guns in the US every year.
Why get rid of the one that causes way fewer deaths, while just ignoring the one that causes way more deaths?
If you want to save lives, getting rid of alcohol saves 70 thousand more lives every year than getting rid of guns does.
"Alcohol is a factor in" is the correct statement. Cars kill more people than alcohol, why not ban cars? The point is, that cars, alcohol, etc... are not DESIGNED to kill things. Other factors you need to look into are how many people actually drink alcohol vs how many own/use guns. Same with cars. You cant line up the stats like that.
None of that matters though, because the point is, one is NOT designed to kill people, the other IS.
Alcohol has no real redeeming uses besides that it's fun to drink some times. It causes far more deaths, the vast majority of which could have been prevented if alcohol was banned.
Guns have more legitimate uses than alcohol, like shooting at the range, or hunting, and guns cause LESS deaths than alcohol, but you want to get rid of guns and not alcohol?
On February 21 2012 06:27 smokeyhoodoo wrote: If an organization arrived at my house looking for firearms to confiscate saying "only we can have guns, this is for your protection", I wouldn't believe them.
Not sure if you're being completely retarded here or just made a bad example.
On February 21 2012 06:17 Focuspants wrote: Bars make most of their money on alcohol not food. The margin of profit on alcohol is FAR higher than on food, and the quantity sold is also FAR higher.
Alcohol and firearms cant be compared to each other. Its a useless argument. You cant point a bottle of beer at someone, press it with 1 finger, and end their life. Their are a multitude of factors that may lead to someone indirectly "using" alcohol to eventually kill someone or themself. Guns are killing tools. One that requires very little personal contact. Its a fact that guns are more lethal than fists, knives, bottles, bats, etc... and the act of shooting someone is much easier than staring someone in the eyes as you physically assault or stab them at close range.
Alcohol is not directly used or designed to kill something, guns are. This argument is pointless.
100,000 people die due to alcohol in the US every year. 30,000 people die to guns in the US every year.
Why get rid of the one that causes way fewer deaths, while just ignoring the one that causes way more deaths?
If you want to save lives, getting rid of alcohol saves 70 thousand more lives every year than getting rid of guns does.
"Alcohol is a factor in" is the correct statement. Cars kill more people than alcohol, why not ban cars? The point is, that cars, alcohol, etc... are not DESIGNED to kill things. Other factors you need to look into are how many people actually drink alcohol vs how many own/use guns. Same with cars. You cant line up the stats like that.
None of that matters though, because the point is, one is NOT designed to kill people, the other IS.
Alcohol has no real redeeming uses besides that it's fun to drink some times. It causes far more deaths, the vast majority of which could have been prevented if alcohol was banned.
Guns have more legitimate uses than alcohol, like shooting at the range, or hunting, and guns cause LESS deaths than alcohol, but you want to get rid of guns and not alcohol?
You're basically saying, alcohol has no redeeming uses besides [entertainment]. Guns however provides [entertainment].
I like drinking with my friends and have a good time socializing. Some of them like drinking in clubs and meeting girls or "meeting" girls. The entertainment provided by alcohol is not inherently inferior to the entertainment provided by firearms. If you prefer one to the other, that's you - but I disagree.
I guns don't kill people, why even make weapons? Just send the soldiers in with knives, forks and bats. Sounds like a good way to relieve the budget innit?
On February 21 2012 06:27 smokeyhoodoo wrote: If an organization arrived at my house looking for firearms to confiscate saying "only we can have guns, this is for your protection", I wouldn't believe them.
Not sure if you're being completely retarded here or just made a bad example.
On February 21 2012 06:26 Djzapz wrote: Stop it with the purely mathematical thing. Yes you can say it a million times, 100,000-30,000=70,000 but it's not that simple D:
On February 21 2012 06:04 Millitron wrote: [quote] Socializing happened for hundreds of years before the concept of bars and pubs, and would continue to happen without them.
I would also argue that given the huge populations and already-strained infrastructure of many developed countries today, the population growth that comes with this socialization is actually a bad thing, but that's a discussion for another thread, or PM's if you care enough about it.
Societies have never been as individualistic as they are now, dynamics for socializing are different.
Most bars don't make their money on the beer they sell, they make it on the food they sell. If people want that kind of social atmosphere, not having alcohol will not prevent it.
I'm skeptical of the first part of that, I don't really believe that "most bars" make more money on the food. Anyway, IMO you severely underestimate the importance of alcohol in socialization. It does play a big role I think.
But you assume two things.
First, that nothing would replace it.
Second, that we need the socialization.
I think it's fair to assume both. =)
I don't know man. There are plenty of places where people don't drink alcohol.
Well let's take the middle eastern countries for instance where people basically don't drink for the most part. Those societies are significantly more holistic (less individualist) - you go in stores and you talk to the "clerk" who's not so much a clerk to you as a member of your society.
Here, the cashier is a machine and he allows me to make a transaction with a big corp led by people who are more or less aware of our existence.
The two societies have very different means of socializing. If you take alcohol out of the equation here, we won't transform into their society.
It's not just the middle east, there are still lots of areas here in the US that are completely dry. I also don't see how individualism means you need alcohol to socialize.
It doesn't mean that you "need" alcohol to socialize but it's one of the big things that brings people together in the Occident.
There are lots of things that bring people together. Saying alcohol is more important for bringing people together then TV, sports events, plays, video games, or even guns is quite presumptuous. Which gets back to the heart of the argument. Guns, while designed to kill things, aren't only used for that. The hunting and shooting aspects of them also bring people together to socialize, as well as other benefits.
So basically you're saying the social aspects of alcohol outweigh the negative consequences it brings(which are 3x as bad), while the same doesn't apply to guns. That's about as subjective as it gets.
On February 21 2012 06:17 Focuspants wrote: Bars make most of their money on alcohol not food. The margin of profit on alcohol is FAR higher than on food, and the quantity sold is also FAR higher.
Alcohol and firearms cant be compared to each other. Its a useless argument. You cant point a bottle of beer at someone, press it with 1 finger, and end their life. Their are a multitude of factors that may lead to someone indirectly "using" alcohol to eventually kill someone or themself. Guns are killing tools. One that requires very little personal contact. Its a fact that guns are more lethal than fists, knives, bottles, bats, etc... and the act of shooting someone is much easier than staring someone in the eyes as you physically assault or stab them at close range.
Alcohol is not directly used or designed to kill something, guns are. This argument is pointless.
100,000 people die due to alcohol in the US every year. 30,000 people die to guns in the US every year.
Why get rid of the one that causes way fewer deaths, while just ignoring the one that causes way more deaths?
If you want to save lives, getting rid of alcohol saves 70 thousand more lives every year than getting rid of guns does.
"Alcohol is a factor in" is the correct statement. Cars kill more people than alcohol, why not ban cars? The point is, that cars, alcohol, etc... are not DESIGNED to kill things. Other factors you need to look into are how many people actually drink alcohol vs how many own/use guns. Same with cars. You cant line up the stats like that.
None of that matters though, because the point is, one is NOT designed to kill people, the other IS.
Alcohol has no real redeeming uses besides that it's fun to drink some times. It causes far more deaths, the vast majority of which could have been prevented if alcohol was banned.
Guns have more legitimate uses than alcohol, like shooting at the range, or hunting, and guns cause LESS deaths than alcohol, but you want to get rid of guns and not alcohol?
You're basically saying, alcohol has no redeeming uses besides [entertainment]. Guns however provides [entertainment].
I like drinking with my friends and have a good time socializing. Some of them like drinking in clubs and meeting girls or "meeting" girls. The entertainment provided by alcohol is not inherently inferior to the entertainment provided by firearms. If you prefer one to the other, that's you - but I disagree.
EXACTLY my point. Guns provide legitimate entertainment. Alcohol provides legitimate entertainment. Guns cause plenty of deaths every year. Alcohol causes plenty of deaths every year. Why only get rid of guns, but not alcohol? If we're getting rid of things which cause deaths, and only have entertainment as a legitimate use, then you can't keep alcohol and get rid of guns without being a hypocrite.
On February 21 2012 06:26 Djzapz wrote: Stop it with the purely mathematical thing. Yes you can say it a million times, 100,000-30,000=70,000 but it's not that simple D:
On February 21 2012 06:25 Myles wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:23 Djzapz wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:19 Myles wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:18 Djzapz wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:16 Millitron wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:14 Djzapz wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:11 Millitron wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:05 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Societies have never been as individualistic as they are now, dynamics for socializing are different.
Most bars don't make their money on the beer they sell, they make it on the food they sell. If people want that kind of social atmosphere, not having alcohol will not prevent it.
I'm skeptical of the first part of that, I don't really believe that "most bars" make more money on the food. Anyway, IMO you severely underestimate the importance of alcohol in socialization. It does play a big role I think.
But you assume two things.
First, that nothing would replace it.
Second, that we need the socialization.
I think it's fair to assume both. =)
I don't know man. There are plenty of places where people don't drink alcohol.
Well let's take the middle eastern countries for instance where people basically don't drink for the most part. Those societies are significantly more holistic (less individualist) - you go in stores and you talk to the "clerk" who's not so much a clerk to you as a member of your society.
Here, the cashier is a machine and he allows me to make a transaction with a big corp led by people who are more or less aware of our existence.
The two societies have very different means of socializing. If you take alcohol out of the equation here, we won't transform into their society.
It's not just the middle east, there are still lots of areas here in the US that are completely dry. I also don't see how individualism means you need alcohol to socialize.
It doesn't mean that you "need" alcohol to socialize but it's one of the big things that brings people together in the Occident.
There are lots of things that bring people together. Saying alcohol is more important for bringing people together then TV, sports events, plays, video games, or even guns is quite presumptuous. Which gets back to the heart of the argument. Guns, while designed to kill things, aren't only used for that. The hunting and shooting aspects of them also bring people together to socialize, as well as other benefits.
So basically you're saying the social aspects of alcohol outweigh the negative consequences it brings(which are 3x as bad), while the same doesn't apply to guns. That's about as subjective as it gets.
Well I admit to it being an opinion, you're not any more objective than I am on this. And btw, TV, sports events and stuff tends to bring together people who already know each other. Alcohol brings strangers together a lot of the time. Now don't go arguing that "other things do that too and do it better", I don't give a fuck - something doesn't need to be the number one best way at doing something to be relevant and good in some ways.
On February 21 2012 06:17 Focuspants wrote: Bars make most of their money on alcohol not food. The margin of profit on alcohol is FAR higher than on food, and the quantity sold is also FAR higher.
Alcohol and firearms cant be compared to each other. Its a useless argument. You cant point a bottle of beer at someone, press it with 1 finger, and end their life. Their are a multitude of factors that may lead to someone indirectly "using" alcohol to eventually kill someone or themself. Guns are killing tools. One that requires very little personal contact. Its a fact that guns are more lethal than fists, knives, bottles, bats, etc... and the act of shooting someone is much easier than staring someone in the eyes as you physically assault or stab them at close range.
Alcohol is not directly used or designed to kill something, guns are. This argument is pointless.
100,000 people die due to alcohol in the US every year. 30,000 people die to guns in the US every year.
Why get rid of the one that causes way fewer deaths, while just ignoring the one that causes way more deaths?
If you want to save lives, getting rid of alcohol saves 70 thousand more lives every year than getting rid of guns does.
"Alcohol is a factor in" is the correct statement. Cars kill more people than alcohol, why not ban cars? The point is, that cars, alcohol, etc... are not DESIGNED to kill things. Other factors you need to look into are how many people actually drink alcohol vs how many own/use guns. Same with cars. You cant line up the stats like that.
None of that matters though, because the point is, one is NOT designed to kill people, the other IS.
Alcohol has no real redeeming uses besides that it's fun to drink some times. It causes far more deaths, the vast majority of which could have been prevented if alcohol was banned.
Guns have more legitimate uses than alcohol, like shooting at the range, or hunting, and guns cause LESS deaths than alcohol, but you want to get rid of guns and not alcohol?
You're basically saying, alcohol has no redeeming uses besides [entertainment]. Guns however provides [entertainment].
I like drinking with my friends and have a good time socializing. Some of them like drinking in clubs and meeting girls or "meeting" girls. The entertainment provided by alcohol is not inherently inferior to the entertainment provided by firearms. If you prefer one to the other, that's you - but I disagree.
EXACTLY my point. Guns provide legitimate entertainment. Alcohol provides legitimate entertainment. Guns cause plenty of deaths every year. Alcohol causes plenty of deaths every year. Why only get rid of guns, but not alcohol? If we're getting rid of things which cause deaths, and only have entertainment as a legitimate use, then you can't keep alcohol and get rid of guns without being a hypocrite.
Well as we discussed earlier, getting rid of guns is impossible - and getting rid of alcohol is impossible. However, my opinion** is that deaths caused by guns are even more unnecessary than the ones caused by alcohol - especially the "Amy Winehouse" style deaths. (Drunk driving is another story, and when you kill someone else while drunk driving that's sad)
Some innocent person getting killed by an armed person is very sad. Amy Winehouse being stupid and killing herself is significantly less sad, I have little pity for self destruction.
Also, I (subjective opinion) consider that the gains from alcohol are better than the gains from guns. Neither of those things are good, I suppose.
On February 20 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote: When I compare the murder rate in the US to that of other developed countries, I wish we had less guns. Its really staggering just how much more murder occurs here compared to Japan or Korea
Does Japan and Korea have the presence of street gangs that the United States has?
Its completely unscientific to take a single variable (in this case the number of people with guns) and exclusively analyze that variable for a cause of a problem that has numerous causes (In this case quantities of murders). There are enormous amounts of psychological, circumstantial, social, and physical causes of murders. How do you know people in the US are not simply more programmed to murder from the large presence of R-Rated Hollywood films? Or perhaps street gangs are attempting to protect their turf in more areas of the United States than the other countries your referring to. Also, how do you know people in the US are not simply more emotional and therefore get angry easier than people in other countries?
Perhaps the cause of murders is a combination of all these variables, along with the quantities of guns in America, alongside thousands of other variables I have not listed. To simply look at some data and conclude that guns are the sole or even a primary cause of the problems is immature, unscientific, and susceptible to statistical error.
A good video that will give you an analogy to what I'm saying is one of Richard Feynman's videos on youtube about social sciences.
(In case you didn't know Feynman is one of the most respected scientists since Einstein).
On February 21 2012 06:17 Focuspants wrote: Bars make most of their money on alcohol not food. The margin of profit on alcohol is FAR higher than on food, and the quantity sold is also FAR higher.
Alcohol and firearms cant be compared to each other. Its a useless argument. You cant point a bottle of beer at someone, press it with 1 finger, and end their life. Their are a multitude of factors that may lead to someone indirectly "using" alcohol to eventually kill someone or themself. Guns are killing tools. One that requires very little personal contact. Its a fact that guns are more lethal than fists, knives, bottles, bats, etc... and the act of shooting someone is much easier than staring someone in the eyes as you physically assault or stab them at close range.
Alcohol is not directly used or designed to kill something, guns are. This argument is pointless.
100,000 people die due to alcohol in the US every year. 30,000 people die to guns in the US every year.
Why get rid of the one that causes way fewer deaths, while just ignoring the one that causes way more deaths?
If you want to save lives, getting rid of alcohol saves 70 thousand more lives every year than getting rid of guns does.
"Alcohol is a factor in" is the correct statement. Cars kill more people than alcohol, why not ban cars? The point is, that cars, alcohol, etc... are not DESIGNED to kill things. Other factors you need to look into are how many people actually drink alcohol vs how many own/use guns. Same with cars. You cant line up the stats like that.
None of that matters though, because the point is, one is NOT designed to kill people, the other IS.
Alcohol has no real redeeming uses besides that it's fun to drink some times. It causes far more deaths, the vast majority of which could have been prevented if alcohol was banned.
Guns have more legitimate uses than alcohol, like shooting at the range, or hunting, and guns cause LESS deaths than alcohol, but you want to get rid of guns and not alcohol?
You're basically saying, alcohol has no redeeming uses besides [entertainment]. Guns however provides [entertainment].
I like drinking with my friends and have a good time socializing. Some of them like drinking in clubs and meeting girls or "meeting" girls. The entertainment provided by alcohol is not inherently inferior to the entertainment provided by firearms. If you prefer one to the other, that's you - but I disagree.
EXACTLY my point. Guns provide legitimate entertainment. Alcohol provides legitimate entertainment. Guns cause plenty of deaths every year. Alcohol causes plenty of deaths every year. Why only get rid of guns, but not alcohol? If we're getting rid of things which cause deaths, and only have entertainment as a legitimate use, then you can't keep alcohol and get rid of guns without being a hypocrite.
The difference between guns and alcohol here is easy: When alcohol provides entertainment, it also causes deaths. It happens exactly at the same time. Or may, at least. But with guns, you can clearly divide between entertainment uses and death uses. And you can ban death uses, like europeans countries do.
EPT
