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 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: [quote] 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.
So we're agreed that if one is to be banned on the basis that it causes too much harm, the other must be as well?
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).
I mean, is there even a point in continuing with the debate after listening to Feynman? Truer words have never been spoken. There is so much pseudo-scientific BS spouted off when it comes to the gun debate... questionable "facts" and spurious correlations with little to no basis in reality.
Not to mention the fact that the thug who wants to shoot you for looking at him the wrong way doesn't really care if guns are legal or not.
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.
I believe you tried that experiment during the 1920s. Didn't work so well, did it? Not saying a prohibition of guns is going to work any better in the US, because they might be equally ingrained in culture, however, speaking for Spain and the Netherlands: prohibiting drinking will lead to mass disobedience and a booming illegal alcohol market. People aren't suddenly going to forego their beer after work, a wine during dinner or for the true alcoholics, their cognac with their morning coffee.
However we DO teach young schoolchildren the dangers of alcohol abuse and educate them (and have constant reminders in government-sponsored advertisements) about how drinking can ruin your life. I think that is a rather big difference in how the US treat guns: I have never heard of children being educated in the responsible use of guns (but correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't been to that many states).
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: [quote] 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 06:41 Millitron wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:36 Djzapz wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:33 Millitron wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:27 Focuspants wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:23 Millitron wrote:
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.
So we're agreed that if one is to be banned on the basis that it causes too much harm, the other must be as well?
Not at all. First I don't believe that we should ban either because it's impossible. Let's say however that the government was to take the initiative to restrict the ways people die. There are hundreds of things that kill people and we can remove the worst ones, and the worst ones may not necessarily be the ones that kill the most people.
In Quebec, a lot of accidents were due to people having regular tires during the winter, so they slipped and caused accidents. Now it's illegal to have regular tires after November 11th or something. A lot of deaths or injuries happen because of people slipping on ice - so make it illegal to not put salt on the ice to keep it from being so slippery. Smoking kills people? Make it harder to smoke, etc.
I think it's important to study every case and make a judgment call based on if doing something is possible what are the gains, etc.
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.
I believe you tried that experiment during the 1920s. Didn't work so well, did it? Not saying a prohibition of guns is going to work any better in the US, because they might be equally ingrained in culture, however, speaking for Spain and the Netherlands: prohibiting drinking will lead to mass disobedience and a booming illegal alcohol market. People aren't suddenly going to forego their beer after work, a wine during dinner or for the true alcoholics, their cognac with their morning coffee.
However we DO teach young schoolchildren the dangers of alcohol abuse and educate them (and have constant reminders in government-sponsored advertisements) about how drinking can ruin your life. I think that is a rather big difference in how the US treat guns: I have never heard of children being educated in the responsible use of guns (but correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't been to that many states).
Handguns require licenses in all states that allow them, and the licenses entail a safety course/test which varies state-to-state.
Long-guns, like rifles or shotguns, require a background check to ensure you are a trustworthy individual.
Needless to say, the point is that you can't get rid of guns any easier than you can get rid of alcohol, and in order to avoid hypocrisy, if you are against one, you must be against the other.
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: [quote] 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 06:41 Millitron wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:36 Djzapz wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:33 Millitron wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:27 Focuspants wrote:
On February 21 2012 06:23 Millitron wrote:
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.
So we're agreed that if one is to be banned on the basis that it causes too much harm, the other must be as well?
Not at all. First I don't believe that we should ban either because it's impossible. Let's say however that the government was to take the initiative to restrict the ways people die. There are hundreds of things that kill people and we can remove the worst ones, and the worst ones may not necessarily be the ones that kill the most people.
In Quebec, a lot of accidents were due to people having regular tires during the winter, so they slipped and caused accidents. Now it's illegal to have regular tires after November 11th or something. A lot of deaths or injuries happen because of people slipping on ice - so make it illegal to not put salt on the ice to keep it from being so slippery. Smoking kills people? Make it harder to smoke, etc.
I think it's important to study every case and make a judgment call based on if doing something is possible what are the gains, etc.
I've bolded the part I don't agree with at all, and it seems to come up time and time again.
How do you quantify how bad something is if not by number of deaths?
P.S. I gotta go for a few hours, if you want to continue this discussion, please PM me.
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.
I believe you tried that experiment during the 1920s. Didn't work so well, did it? Not saying a prohibition of guns is going to work any better in the US, because they might be equally ingrained in culture, however, speaking for Spain and the Netherlands: prohibiting drinking will lead to mass disobedience and a booming illegal alcohol market. People aren't suddenly going to forego their beer after work, a wine during dinner or for the true alcoholics, their cognac with their morning coffee.
However we DO teach young schoolchildren the dangers of alcohol abuse and educate them (and have constant reminders in government-sponsored advertisements) about how drinking can ruin your life. I think that is a rather big difference in how the US treat guns: I have never heard of children being educated in the responsible use of guns (but correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't been to that many states).
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.
Even though I oppose widespread gun ownership and reject gun ownership for entertainment reasons, there is some grain of truth in this statement. Gun involved killings receive disproportionate amounts of attention when it comes to number of casualties. Pools kill more children (drowning) in the US on a yearly base then guns would. Nevertheless, nobody minds having a pool when sending your kids over to play. But a gun, damn then you would truly suck as a parent. Same with precaution measures: if only a fraction of the resources spent onprotection measures against guns (safety mechanisms, informing people,...) would have been devouted to making fences around pools or making sure parents always stay near, more children would be saved per annum. Freakonomics ftw.
On February 21 2012 06:01 hillman wrote: I would be curious to know how that has affected crime in Scotland..very interesting though, I didn't know that
So-so.
Scotland's violent crime has definitely gone down in recent years buts it hard to tell whether it due to the police's zero-tolerance on any form of offensive weapons or changing social conditions.
A place like Glasgow really wasn't that dissimilar from a US city like Detroit or Chicago. Used to be a massive manaufacturing hub but during the 60's/70's it all came crashing down, the welfare sercuity blanket cut from them in the 80's, unemployment rose and crime rose with it. Replace racism with sectarianism and guncrime for knifecrime, combined with the usual heavy social influences of alcohol and drugs and your almost there. Glasgow used to have some of the highest homocide rates in Europe during the 70's and 80's and the lowest life expectancy rates, its concievable that with guns it would of soared to as high as some of the worst effected areas in the US for homocide.
But times have changed. Each consecutive government pushed through tougher and tougher regulation on any form of offensive weapon. Sectarianism is a relatively minor issue these days, and Glasgow got its unemployment under control and revitalised the city. For better or worst it shed all pretense of manaufacturing and became a typical modern western city focused on buisness friendly ventures, which means it's filled with call centers, retail parks and trendy cafe bistros. Its actually a nice place and fairly safe to live these days (well, large parts of it), and theres dozens of towns/cities in the UK much more crime addled now.
As a matter of interest to some, one of the primary reasons the UK forced through widespread guncontrol in 1920 in the first place was due to events in Glasgow, in 1919 it had an armed uprising, The Battle of George Square and the government at the time feared other cities might take up arms for a communist revolution.
British Tanks and soliders in the streets of Glasgow.
This isn't a political issue, its a cultural one. In the U.S. virtually everyone either owns a gun or knows someone who does, and many people have shot one. I've shot guns, I do it with friends. Its something that's a part of our culture. There are other cultures who's fear of guns is just as ingrained. So you can have your irrational fear of something you've never experienced and we can do our own thing. Okay? Many of you will probably think we're just a bunch of rednecks, including Americans who are from a big city, but if I we're to take you shooting, I guarantee that you would lose this sentiment. Very few of the people I know that own or shoot guns are people I would consider being even close to a redneck, and these people vary greatly in their views on politics.
On February 21 2012 07:26 smokeyhoodoo wrote: This isn't a political issue, its a cultural one. In the U.S. virtually everyone either owns a gun or knows someone who does, and many people have shot one. I've shot guns, I do it with friends. Its something that's a part of our culture. There are other cultures who's fear of guns is just as ingrained. So you can have your irrational fear of something you've never experienced and we can do our own thing. Okay? Many of you will probably think we're just a bunch of rednecks, including Americans who are from a big city, but if I we're to take you shooting, I guarantee that you would lose this sentiment. Very few of the people I know that own or shoot guns are people I would consider being even close to a redneck, and these people vary greatly in their views on politics.
How's it irrational. There's nothing irrational in being uncomfortable with lethal weapons Especially not when we look at the US - we don't think "oh what a fun bunch".
On February 21 2012 07:26 smokeyhoodoo wrote: This isn't a political issue, its a cultural one. In the U.S. virtually everyone either owns a gun or knows someone who does, and many people have shot one. I've shot guns, I do it with friends. Its something that's a part of our culture. There are other cultures who's fear of guns is just as ingrained. So you can have your irrational fear of something you've never experienced and we can do our own thing. Okay? Many of you will probably think we're just a bunch of rednecks, including Americans who are from a big city, but if I we're to take you shooting, I guarantee that you would lose this sentiment. Very few of the people I know that own or shoot guns are people I would consider being even close to a redneck, and these people vary greatly in their views on politics.
How's it irrational. There's nothing irrational in being uncomfortable with lethal weapons Especially not when we look at the US - we don't think "oh what a fun bunch".
Are you afraid of knives as well? Probably not because you've been around and used them. It is, however, a lethal weapon. Fear of it is irrational, unless its clear someone intends to kill you with it. That's not to say you shouldn't be careful and responsible with it however. I'm not quite sure why you don't like Americans, but that's likely irrational as well. Perhaps you've never experienced an American either? The unknown is often quite scary. I've never really seen a difference between Canadians and Americans tbh.
On February 21 2012 07:26 smokeyhoodoo wrote: This isn't a political issue, its a cultural one. In the U.S. virtually everyone either owns a gun or knows someone who does, and many people have shot one. I've shot guns, I do it with friends. Its something that's a part of our culture. There are other cultures who's fear of guns is just as ingrained. So you can have your irrational fear of something you've never experienced and we can do our own thing. Okay? Many of you will probably think we're just a bunch of rednecks, including Americans who are from a big city, but if I we're to take you shooting, I guarantee that you would lose this sentiment. Very few of the people I know that own or shoot guns are people I would consider being even close to a redneck, and these people vary greatly in their views on politics.
How's it irrational. There's nothing irrational in being uncomfortable with lethal weapons Especially not when we look at the US - we don't think "oh what a fun bunch".
Are you afraid of knives as well? Probably not because you've been around and used them. It is, however, a lethal weapon. Fear of it is irrational, unless its clear someone intends to kill you with it. That's not to say you shouldn't be careful and responsible with it however. I'm not quite sure why you don't like Americans, but that's likely irrational as well. Perhaps you've never experienced an American either? The unknown is often quite scary.
Well my gf is a Texan who lives here, so I've "experienced an American" (no pun intended). I'm not afraid of guns, but when I walk around in Montreal, people are not supposed to carry guns or knives on their person. If everyone carried a gun, I'd be worried. Now if I bump into someone by mistake and they happen to be particularly aggressive (it happens), most likely they only have fists - so my odds are better.
I've never really seen a difference between Canadians and Americans tbh.
I used to be against people being able to carry a concealed weapon, but after shooting a gun for myself I have changed my mind. If you understand what carrying a gun means, the danger and responsibility, you will only use it when absolutely necessary.
On February 21 2012 07:26 smokeyhoodoo wrote: This isn't a political issue, its a cultural one. In the U.S. virtually everyone either owns a gun or knows someone who does, and many people have shot one. I've shot guns, I do it with friends. Its something that's a part of our culture. There are other cultures who's fear of guns is just as ingrained. So you can have your irrational fear of something you've never experienced and we can do our own thing. Okay? Many of you will probably think we're just a bunch of rednecks, including Americans who are from a big city, but if I we're to take you shooting, I guarantee that you would lose this sentiment. Very few of the people I know that own or shoot guns are people I would consider being even close to a redneck, and these people vary greatly in their views on politics.
How's it irrational. There's nothing irrational in being uncomfortable with lethal weapons Especially not when we look at the US - we don't think "oh what a fun bunch".
Are you afraid of knives as well? Probably not because you've been around and used them. It is, however, a lethal weapon. Fear of it is irrational, unless its clear someone intends to kill you with it. That's not to say you shouldn't be careful and responsible with it however. I'm not quite sure why you don't like Americans, but that's likely irrational as well. Perhaps you've never experienced an American either? The unknown is often quite scary.
Well my gf is a Texan who lives here, so I've "experienced an American" (no pun intended). I'm not afraid of guns, but when I walk around in Montreal, people are not supposed to carry guns or knives on their person. If everyone carried a gun, I'd be worried. Now if I bump into someone by mistake and they happen to be particularly aggressive (it happens), most likely they only have fists - so my odds are better.
Why are you dating her? She's one of the few "fun ones"? I've never been worried about an aggressive person carrying a gun, your perception of this country is truly odd. Let me give you a hint, its basically the same as that one country called Canada.
On February 21 2012 07:49 TheSwamp wrote: I used to be against people being able to carry a concealed weapon, but after shooting a gun for myself I have changed my mind. If you understand what carrying a gun means, the danger and responsibility, you will only use it when absolutely necessary.
On February 21 2012 07:26 smokeyhoodoo wrote: This isn't a political issue, its a cultural one. In the U.S. virtually everyone either owns a gun or knows someone who does, and many people have shot one. I've shot guns, I do it with friends. Its something that's a part of our culture. There are other cultures who's fear of guns is just as ingrained. So you can have your irrational fear of something you've never experienced and we can do our own thing. Okay? Many of you will probably think we're just a bunch of rednecks, including Americans who are from a big city, but if I we're to take you shooting, I guarantee that you would lose this sentiment. Very few of the people I know that own or shoot guns are people I would consider being even close to a redneck, and these people vary greatly in their views on politics.
How's it irrational. There's nothing irrational in being uncomfortable with lethal weapons Especially not when we look at the US - we don't think "oh what a fun bunch".
Are you afraid of knives as well? Probably not because you've been around and used them. It is, however, a lethal weapon. Fear of it is irrational, unless its clear someone intends to kill you with it. That's not to say you shouldn't be careful and responsible with it however. I'm not quite sure why you don't like Americans, but that's likely irrational as well. Perhaps you've never experienced an American either? The unknown is often quite scary.
Well my gf is a Texan who lives here, so I've "experienced an American" (no pun intended). I'm not afraid of guns, but when I walk around in Montreal, people are not supposed to carry guns or knives on their person. If everyone carried a gun, I'd be worried. Now if I bump into someone by mistake and they happen to be particularly aggressive (it happens), most likely they only have fists - so my odds are better.
Why are you dating her? She's one of the few "fun ones"? I've never been worried about an aggressive person carrying a gun, your perception of this country is truly odd. Let me give you a hint, its basically the same as that one country called Canada.
She's one of the many fun ones (a particularly likable person actually!). As for aggressive persons carrying weapons, like I said, your country's homicide rate is three times higher than Canada, it's a big difference!
Edit: To make it clear, I have plenty of American friends and I think a lot of you are fantastic. However, the society IMO is not particularly awesome - in many places anyway it isn't. That said, some segments of the US society are good too... In general though, I wouldn't be comfortable being surrounded with armed people - knives or guns, Canadians or Americans...
On February 21 2012 07:49 TheSwamp wrote: I used to be against people being able to carry a concealed weapon, but after shooting a gun for myself I have changed my mind. If you understand what carrying a gun means, the danger and responsibility, you will only use it when absolutely necessary.
On February 21 2012 07:26 smokeyhoodoo wrote: This isn't a political issue, its a cultural one. In the U.S. virtually everyone either owns a gun or knows someone who does, and many people have shot one. I've shot guns, I do it with friends. Its something that's a part of our culture. There are other cultures who's fear of guns is just as ingrained. So you can have your irrational fear of something you've never experienced and we can do our own thing. Okay? Many of you will probably think we're just a bunch of rednecks, including Americans who are from a big city, but if I we're to take you shooting, I guarantee that you would lose this sentiment. Very few of the people I know that own or shoot guns are people I would consider being even close to a redneck, and these people vary greatly in their views on politics.
How's it irrational. There's nothing irrational in being uncomfortable with lethal weapons Especially not when we look at the US - we don't think "oh what a fun bunch".
Are you afraid of knives as well? Probably not because you've been around and used them. It is, however, a lethal weapon. Fear of it is irrational, unless its clear someone intends to kill you with it. That's not to say you shouldn't be careful and responsible with it however. I'm not quite sure why you don't like Americans, but that's likely irrational as well. Perhaps you've never experienced an American either? The unknown is often quite scary.
Well my gf is a Texan who lives here, so I've "experienced an American" (no pun intended). I'm not afraid of guns, but when I walk around in Montreal, people are not supposed to carry guns or knives on their person. If everyone carried a gun, I'd be worried. Now if I bump into someone by mistake and they happen to be particularly aggressive (it happens), most likely they only have fists - so my odds are better.
Why are you dating her? She's one of the few "fun ones"? I've never been worried about an aggressive person carrying a gun, your perception of this country is truly odd. Let me give you a hint, its basically the same as that one country called Canada.
She's one of the many fun ones (a particularly likable person actually!). As for aggressive persons carrying weapons, like I said, your country's homicide rate is three times higher than Canada, it's a big difference!
Oh, so you changed your mind in the last 10 minutes, I'm glad to hear that. Also, there are reasons the homicide rate in the U.S. is three times higher. Gangs, drug prohibition, etc, things that are all interconnected and the only clear thing is that its not because people own guns. Homicide is still a rare occurrence in the U.S. It being three times higher isn't a reason to be afraid to go out. That is yet another irrational fear. Furthermore, Switzerland has the second highest rate of private gun ownership and yet your country has a homicide rate 3 times higher. Wtf is that all about?
On February 21 2012 07:49 TheSwamp wrote: I used to be against people being able to carry a concealed weapon, but after shooting a gun for myself I have changed my mind. If you understand what carrying a gun means, the danger and responsibility, you will only use it when absolutely necessary.
Me? Yes. Everyone? No.
On February 21 2012 07:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
On February 21 2012 07:42 Djzapz wrote:
On February 21 2012 07:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
On February 21 2012 07:29 Djzapz wrote:
On February 21 2012 07:26 smokeyhoodoo wrote: This isn't a political issue, its a cultural one. In the U.S. virtually everyone either owns a gun or knows someone who does, and many people have shot one. I've shot guns, I do it with friends. Its something that's a part of our culture. There are other cultures who's fear of guns is just as ingrained. So you can have your irrational fear of something you've never experienced and we can do our own thing. Okay? Many of you will probably think we're just a bunch of rednecks, including Americans who are from a big city, but if I we're to take you shooting, I guarantee that you would lose this sentiment. Very few of the people I know that own or shoot guns are people I would consider being even close to a redneck, and these people vary greatly in their views on politics.
How's it irrational. There's nothing irrational in being uncomfortable with lethal weapons Especially not when we look at the US - we don't think "oh what a fun bunch".
Are you afraid of knives as well? Probably not because you've been around and used them. It is, however, a lethal weapon. Fear of it is irrational, unless its clear someone intends to kill you with it. That's not to say you shouldn't be careful and responsible with it however. I'm not quite sure why you don't like Americans, but that's likely irrational as well. Perhaps you've never experienced an American either? The unknown is often quite scary.
Well my gf is a Texan who lives here, so I've "experienced an American" (no pun intended). I'm not afraid of guns, but when I walk around in Montreal, people are not supposed to carry guns or knives on their person. If everyone carried a gun, I'd be worried. Now if I bump into someone by mistake and they happen to be particularly aggressive (it happens), most likely they only have fists - so my odds are better.
Why are you dating her? She's one of the few "fun ones"? I've never been worried about an aggressive person carrying a gun, your perception of this country is truly odd. Let me give you a hint, its basically the same as that one country called Canada.
She's one of the many fun ones (a particularly likable person actually!). As for aggressive persons carrying weapons, like I said, your country's homicide rate is three times higher than Canada, it's a big difference!
Oh, so you changed your mind in the last 10 minutes, I'm glad to hear that. Also, there are reasons the homicide rate in the U.S. is three times higher. Gangs, drug prohibition, etc, things that are all interconnected and the only clear thing is that its not because people own guns. Homicide is still a rare occurrence in the U.S. It being three times higher isn't a reason to be afraid to go out. That is yet another irrational fear. Furthermore, Switzerland has the second highest rate of private gun ownership and yet your country has a homicide rate 3 times higher. Wtf is that all about?
My opinion changed? Based on what, my statement that I look in and I don't think "what a fun bunch"? I'm saying I'm not a big fan of the society, the gross nationalism, the conservatism and reckless liberalism (and the fact that people don't know what liberalism means). I'm not a big fan of the insane hatred of the moderate left. I like many individuals, but I don't like many of your values. And I'm not impressed with the homicide rate which is the highest in the industrialized world.
As for the stats, I talked about them fairly in depth earlier in the thread. Switzerland has a lot of guns and they don't shoot each other - what's up with a crazy leftist country that knows better than to shoot everyone? Kudos to them. It just tells me that I may have a good reason for not wanting Americans to have firearms but the Swiss can have them if they want - they know how to handle them.
I'm thinking, as far as strong democracies go, egalitarian countries tend to have lower homicide rates. So give those egalitarian countries a whole bunch of guns if they want them, since they won't murder each other anyway. But in the US, the right is pushing for more inequality... Dangerous!
There is one problem with the argument of gun violence coming down to an irresponsible misuse of weapons, and not to gun regulations in general - the same argument can exculpate any ideology since every action involves a human component:
Communism in itself is a great idea, and one shouldn't attribute the perversions of the Stalin era to the Marxian doctine as such. Capitalism in itself isn't a flawed system, all social injustice comes down to individualistic corporate greed and an abuse of capital. Religion for itself is truly peaceful, and whenever religious motifs promote the cause of violence and war, they are being abused by power politics and nationalist ideologies. Armament does not increase gun violence, irresponsible people and criminals are responsible for the misuse of guns.
In short, if a system falls victim to misuse on a regular basis, maybe there is a problem in the system.
On February 21 2012 08:16 Poffel wrote: In short, if a system falls victim to misuse on a regular basis, maybe there is a problem in the system.
Seems like a decent argument for being a bit nervous about giving a gun to a random in a country which has proven that its people are more likely to shoot each other? Guns sold in Switzerland kill less people than guns sold in the US. Guns aren't bad on their own, that's a given - but sometimes they make a dangerous pairing with people.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_eBf41IICCzU/SwL124Jj9MI/AAAAAAAAACg/P-qFnrIUVyQ/s1600/img033.jpg)
