|
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 May 09 2013 03:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 03:12 micronesia wrote:On May 09 2013 03:10 rezoacken wrote:I think the point being made is just that guns are not being addressed in a way proportional to their threat, when compared to other threats to innocent life What if guns were restricted the same way cars/driving is then ? Required theoretical/practical training (forbidden before 18/21, safety stuff, proper use, how to not let your kids grab it, etc) and necessity of having passed the tests to be able to buy/own ? Just wondering (and not living in the US I don't know of the current restrictions). Maybe this would help at least for accidents or trigger happy people. P.S: Please don't respond that it wouldn't erase the problem as an argument, nobody with a sane mind believe you can have 0% crime. I think it's a good idea. Although I think supervised gun use for children should be considered as well. As always, the devil is in the details though. Underage driving is legal with a permit+a licensed driver giving supervision. I don't see how it should be any different for guns.
You can drive on private property without a license. Furthermore in much of the USA kids go hunting before school. Furthermore how are kids supposed to defend themselves when they are home alone.
14-year-old Phoenix boy shoots, nearly kills armed intruder
|
On May 09 2013 03:56 norjoncal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 03:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2013 03:12 micronesia wrote:On May 09 2013 03:10 rezoacken wrote:I think the point being made is just that guns are not being addressed in a way proportional to their threat, when compared to other threats to innocent life What if guns were restricted the same way cars/driving is then ? Required theoretical/practical training (forbidden before 18/21, safety stuff, proper use, how to not let your kids grab it, etc) and necessity of having passed the tests to be able to buy/own ? Just wondering (and not living in the US I don't know of the current restrictions). Maybe this would help at least for accidents or trigger happy people. P.S: Please don't respond that it wouldn't erase the problem as an argument, nobody with a sane mind believe you can have 0% crime. I think it's a good idea. Although I think supervised gun use for children should be considered as well. As always, the devil is in the details though. Underage driving is legal with a permit+a licensed driver giving supervision. I don't see how it should be any different for guns. You can drive on private property without a license. Furthermore in much of the USA kids go hunting before school. Furthermore how are kids supposed to defend themselves when they are home alone. 14-year-old Phoenix boy shoots, nearly kills armed intruder
Using these sorts of anecdotes isn't so productive, as they can easily be flipped around.
5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister
|
On May 09 2013 03:56 norjoncal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 03:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2013 03:12 micronesia wrote:On May 09 2013 03:10 rezoacken wrote:I think the point being made is just that guns are not being addressed in a way proportional to their threat, when compared to other threats to innocent life What if guns were restricted the same way cars/driving is then ? Required theoretical/practical training (forbidden before 18/21, safety stuff, proper use, how to not let your kids grab it, etc) and necessity of having passed the tests to be able to buy/own ? Just wondering (and not living in the US I don't know of the current restrictions). Maybe this would help at least for accidents or trigger happy people. P.S: Please don't respond that it wouldn't erase the problem as an argument, nobody with a sane mind believe you can have 0% crime. I think it's a good idea. Although I think supervised gun use for children should be considered as well. As always, the devil is in the details though. Underage driving is legal with a permit+a licensed driver giving supervision. I don't see how it should be any different for guns. You can drive on private property without a license. Furthermore in much of the USA kids go hunting before school. Furthermore how are kids supposed to defend themselves when they are home alone. 14-year-old Phoenix boy shoots, nearly kills armed intruder
He said he liked the idea of guns being treated the same as cars, but didn't like the idea of gun use for children being banned. I was showing him that driving laws are not against kids driving and actually have rules of when and how to teach a kid to drive which is while being supervised with a licensed driver. In otherwords, that his preference of "Although I think supervised gun use for children should be considered as well" is in line with how cars are currently treated as well.
|
First, I'm from Germany, take that into account reading this post.
I think that the situation with guns in the US has much to do with the "general American fear". If I read something like
Furthermore how are kids supposed to defend themselves when they are home alone. I really ask myself what's wrong in this country.
It almost sounds like you guys are afraid to fall asleep, then being killed by an intruder.
I was left alone home by my parents for a couple of hours at the age of 10, one day at the age of 12, and a couple of days at the age of 14-16.
Neither me, nor my parents were worried I'd get killed, or kidnapped, or whatever. I think there is no reason at all to allow children carrying guns. Firstly, because they shouldn't need them, secondly, because they don't know how to deal with them properly, as seen in the last couple of weeks. Even now, as an adult, I don't have the wish to own a gun, not to mention carry one with me.
About "We have to carry guns with us because of the high crime rate in the US": Have you ever thought about the fact that your right to own guns encourages someone to commit crimes? Like, if there's a witness, you could just kill him, right?
|
On May 08 2013 11:53 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 08:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 08 2013 08:03 Oaky wrote:
The truth is in the pudding homes.
Australia got rid of guns, and they haven't had a SINGLE gun massacre since 96' Read the last few pages. Only NRA evidence is real evidence. Scientists, Doctors, and Non-American countries don't count as valid sources of information according to pro-gun people on this thread. Here's your most recent gun study. Pew Research. Dated today. Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
Interesting statistics. Thanks. (=
|
On May 09 2013 04:16 Nimelrian wrote:First, I'm from Germany, take that into account reading this post. I think that the situation with guns in the US has much to do with the "general American fear". If I read something like Show nested quote +Furthermore how are kids supposed to defend themselves when they are home alone. I really ask myself what's wrong in this country. It almost sounds like you guys are afraid to fall asleep, then being killed by an intruder. I was left alone home by my parents for a couple of hours at the age of 10, one day at the age of 12, and a couple of days at the age of 14-16. Neither me, nor my parents were worried I'd get killed, or kidnapped, or whatever. I think there is no reason at all to allow children carrying guns. Firstly, because they shouldn't need them, secondly, because they don't know how to deal with them properly, as seen in the last couple of weeks. Even now, as an adult, I don't have the wish to own a gun, not to mention carry one with me. About "We have to carry guns with us because of the high crime rate in the US": Have you ever thought about the fact that your right to own guns encourages someone to commit crimes? Like, if there's a witness, you could just kill him, right?
Well, it's partially cold war logic.
Most surprise attacks come from less than 21 feet while 21 feet is the distance someone can get on top of you before you can pull out your gun. Realistically, if we believe guns are for self defense, then really any weapon could be for self defense from these attacks. Knife, Mace, Brick, Actual Mace, etc... This is because attacks like this will more often than not be a melee brawl more so than a wild west shoot out.
However, guns still work in these melee situations as well as work in long range situations (such as when someone breaks in your home giving you time to pull out a gun and turn the safety before they get within 21 feet of you)
Being that this is the case, some people feel that they need to get the "biggest bomb" and have a gun instead of a knife/mace/etc... since it will be the maximum deterrent. In the cold war, America didn't need to be able to bomb the world a hundred times over--one would assume that after the first 1-2 times the world is covered in nuclear fallout that it would be devastating enough. But they stockpiled anyway. As a preventative defensive measure against the red threat. This mindset has permeated into the american psyche. The "red threat" is everywhere. Mugging women, breaking into homes, and tyrannizing the populace. Because of this citizens need guns to keep the red threat at bay much like the US used nukes to keep Russia at bay.
|
On May 09 2013 04:16 Nimelrian wrote:First, I'm from Germany, take that into account reading this post. I think that the situation with guns in the US has much to do with the "general American fear". If I read something like Show nested quote +Furthermore how are kids supposed to defend themselves when they are home alone. I really ask myself what's wrong in this country. It almost sounds like you guys are afraid to fall asleep, then being killed by an intruder. I was left alone home by my parents for a couple of hours at the age of 10, one day at the age of 12, and a couple of days at the age of 14-16. Neither me, nor my parents were worried I'd get killed, or kidnapped, or whatever. I think there is no reason at all to allow children carrying guns. Firstly, because they shouldn't need them, secondly, because they don't know how to deal with them properly, as seen in the last couple of weeks. Even now, as an adult, I don't have the wish to own a gun, not to mention carry one with me. About "We have to carry guns with us because of the high crime rate in the US": Have you ever thought about the fact that your right to own guns encourages someone to commit crimes? Like, if there's a witness, you could just kill him, right?
The ironic answer to your question is yes our right to own guns over the years has caused our current problem of their being as many guns in america as there are people.
But thats just an argument for gun rights so that law abiding citizens are allowed to be as armed to better armed then the criminals that have so many guns in america.
For the most part the gun violence is just minorities shooting each other for socio-economic reasons or by suicide, neither of which although would be solved by trying to restrict gun rights anymore.
and that's the problem right there. We won't be getting any sensible gun laws in america because neither side wants it. the anti gun control side is against gun control from the start and the pro gun control side is more interested on scoring cheap political points in the shape of "assault weapons" that account for as much violence as hammers and bats in america in order to mask how hopelessly outclassed they are in the debate by the NRA.
Edit: I'm actually surprised I'm saying this but what magpie said probably holds a lot of truth in the matter. you ask anyone what they'd want for self defense and they'll all say a gun. With war being so prevalent in our history its only natural for citizens to want a gun for self defense. Just look at the civil war and the revolutionary war, local patriots/loyalists/confederates played a large part in the wars and with every generation having a new war to fight and get around its just always been assumed that one day war will come back and that you need to be ready for it.
America gets really fucked over by its cold war obligations its made more then any other country in the world. At least we won it though right?
|
On May 09 2013 04:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 04:16 Nimelrian wrote:First, I'm from Germany, take that into account reading this post. I think that the situation with guns in the US has much to do with the "general American fear". If I read something like Furthermore how are kids supposed to defend themselves when they are home alone. I really ask myself what's wrong in this country. It almost sounds like you guys are afraid to fall asleep, then being killed by an intruder. I was left alone home by my parents for a couple of hours at the age of 10, one day at the age of 12, and a couple of days at the age of 14-16. Neither me, nor my parents were worried I'd get killed, or kidnapped, or whatever. I think there is no reason at all to allow children carrying guns. Firstly, because they shouldn't need them, secondly, because they don't know how to deal with them properly, as seen in the last couple of weeks. Even now, as an adult, I don't have the wish to own a gun, not to mention carry one with me. About "We have to carry guns with us because of the high crime rate in the US": Have you ever thought about the fact that your right to own guns encourages someone to commit crimes? Like, if there's a witness, you could just kill him, right? The ironic answer to your question is yes our right to own guns over the years has caused our current problem of their being as many guns in america as there are people. But thats just an argument for gun rights so that law abiding citizens are allowed to be as armed to better armed then the criminals that have so many guns in america. For the most part the gun violence is just minorities shooting each other for socio-economic reasons or by suicide, neither of which although would be solved by trying to restrict gun rights anymore. and that's the problem right there. We won't be getting any sensible gun laws in america because neither side wants it. the anti gun control side is against gun control from the start and the pro gun control side is more interested on scoring cheap political points in the shape of "assault weapons" that account for as much violence as hammers and bats in america in order to mask how hopelessly outclassed they are in the debate by the NRA.
They're "outclassed" because they can't actually contradict the 2nd Amendment. The most they can do is attack assault rifles because if they actually stood up and said "lets get rid of guns" then they are violating the amendment. This makes almost all their attacks toothless.
|
On May 09 2013 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 04:28 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 04:16 Nimelrian wrote:First, I'm from Germany, take that into account reading this post. I think that the situation with guns in the US has much to do with the "general American fear". If I read something like Furthermore how are kids supposed to defend themselves when they are home alone. I really ask myself what's wrong in this country. It almost sounds like you guys are afraid to fall asleep, then being killed by an intruder. I was left alone home by my parents for a couple of hours at the age of 10, one day at the age of 12, and a couple of days at the age of 14-16. Neither me, nor my parents were worried I'd get killed, or kidnapped, or whatever. I think there is no reason at all to allow children carrying guns. Firstly, because they shouldn't need them, secondly, because they don't know how to deal with them properly, as seen in the last couple of weeks. Even now, as an adult, I don't have the wish to own a gun, not to mention carry one with me. About "We have to carry guns with us because of the high crime rate in the US": Have you ever thought about the fact that your right to own guns encourages someone to commit crimes? Like, if there's a witness, you could just kill him, right? The ironic answer to your question is yes our right to own guns over the years has caused our current problem of their being as many guns in america as there are people. But thats just an argument for gun rights so that law abiding citizens are allowed to be as armed to better armed then the criminals that have so many guns in america. For the most part the gun violence is just minorities shooting each other for socio-economic reasons or by suicide, neither of which although would be solved by trying to restrict gun rights anymore. and that's the problem right there. We won't be getting any sensible gun laws in america because neither side wants it. the anti gun control side is against gun control from the start and the pro gun control side is more interested on scoring cheap political points in the shape of "assault weapons" that account for as much violence as hammers and bats in america in order to mask how hopelessly outclassed they are in the debate by the NRA. They're "outclassed" because they can't actually contradict the 2nd Amendment. The most they can do is attack assault rifles because if they actually stood up and said "lets get rid of guns" then they are violating the amendment. This makes almost all their attacks toothless.
They're completly outclassed because gun control voters don't actually give a shit and anti gun control voters do give a shit. the NRA is the strongest political group in america after the 2 main parties and gun control people have nothing to speak of.
And again assault rifles are already pro forma banned in america. What "they" are doing is created another class of scary weapons called "assault weapons" and trying to have some political defense on the subject.
Its not like democrats are trying to be completely ineffective on any gun control politics. its just that a weak defense is the only defense they have.
|
I always found this pretty hilarious. Politicians jabbered about how the early 90's assault weapons ban was stopping gun crime. Although they didn't have anything to say as gun crime dropped anyways in spite of the ban expiring.
I'm not sure about everyone else, but I'm still waiting for that apocalypse the news said was going to happen if the DC gun ban was overturned.
|
On May 09 2013 04:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2013 04:28 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 04:16 Nimelrian wrote:First, I'm from Germany, take that into account reading this post. I think that the situation with guns in the US has much to do with the "general American fear". If I read something like Furthermore how are kids supposed to defend themselves when they are home alone. I really ask myself what's wrong in this country. It almost sounds like you guys are afraid to fall asleep, then being killed by an intruder. I was left alone home by my parents for a couple of hours at the age of 10, one day at the age of 12, and a couple of days at the age of 14-16. Neither me, nor my parents were worried I'd get killed, or kidnapped, or whatever. I think there is no reason at all to allow children carrying guns. Firstly, because they shouldn't need them, secondly, because they don't know how to deal with them properly, as seen in the last couple of weeks. Even now, as an adult, I don't have the wish to own a gun, not to mention carry one with me. About "We have to carry guns with us because of the high crime rate in the US": Have you ever thought about the fact that your right to own guns encourages someone to commit crimes? Like, if there's a witness, you could just kill him, right? The ironic answer to your question is yes our right to own guns over the years has caused our current problem of their being as many guns in america as there are people. But thats just an argument for gun rights so that law abiding citizens are allowed to be as armed to better armed then the criminals that have so many guns in america. For the most part the gun violence is just minorities shooting each other for socio-economic reasons or by suicide, neither of which although would be solved by trying to restrict gun rights anymore. and that's the problem right there. We won't be getting any sensible gun laws in america because neither side wants it. the anti gun control side is against gun control from the start and the pro gun control side is more interested on scoring cheap political points in the shape of "assault weapons" that account for as much violence as hammers and bats in america in order to mask how hopelessly outclassed they are in the debate by the NRA. They're "outclassed" because they can't actually contradict the 2nd Amendment. The most they can do is attack assault rifles because if they actually stood up and said "lets get rid of guns" then they are violating the amendment. This makes almost all their attacks toothless. They're completly outclassed because gun control voters don't actually give a shit and anti gun control voters do give a shit. the NRA is the strongest political group in america after the 2 main parties and gun control people have nothing to speak of. And again assault rifles are already pro forma banned in america. What "they" are doing is created another class of scary weapons called "assault weapons" and trying to have some political defense on the subject. Its not like democrats are trying to be completely ineffective on any gun control politics. its just that a weak defense is the only defense they have.
They also can't and are not allowed to have an actual argument for Gun Control as a general policy because then we bump into amendment issues. The only form of argumentation liberal politicians have is on things like magazine size, "assault rifles" etc.... Because until the 2nd Amendment is removed, the most they can do is talk about minor changes.
|
Dumbest question ever asked on TL.net
User was warned for this post
|
Ever? You sure about that? Even including the time someone pinged the tech support forum about whether deleting system 32 was a good idea?
|
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling.
|
On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling.
Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of.
|
On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling. Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of.
I know that. But my point is that you don't see this kind of debates in France or Germany for example. You don't see people in the streets, debates on TV or editiorials in newspapers saying "We wish we could legally own firearms". And we do have a lot of crime (including armed robberies), we hear as many terrible stories of rape, child abduction, etc.
|
On May 09 2013 09:04 mavignon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling. Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of. I know that. But my point is that you don't see this kind of debates in France or Germany for example. You don't see people in the streets, debates on TV or editiorials in newspapers saying "We wish we could legally own firearms". And we do have a lot of crime (including armed robberies), we hear as many terrible stories of rape, child abduction, etc.
No you don´t understand. You can´t use europe countrys and their views regarding gun property on the us society. Things aren´t that easy.
|
On May 09 2013 09:04 mavignon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling. Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of. I know that. But my point is that you don't see this kind of debates in France or Germany for example. You don't see people in the streets, debates on TV or editiorials in newspapers saying "We wish we could legally own firearms". And we do have a lot of crime (including armed robberies), we hear as many terrible stories of rape, child abduction, etc.
Also one must understand people feel as though their constitutional rights are being stripped of them, which by many is seen as a fundamental right. This feeling is sure to cause much upset, I would imagine most people would feel violated if they felt their basic rights were at risk.
|
On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
I don't really get the comparison to alcohol. The reason people are worried about guns isn't because people accidentally shoot themselves, but because they can be construed as a threat to other people and because they affect the potency of violence by way of being accessible. In the case of alcohol, liver disease only affects the person who drinks the alcohol, not others. Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal.
If we really want to get into it, I'd argue that excessive intake of alcohol is immoral anyhow, but it doesn't require legal measures because, ultimately, alcohol abuse only kills the abuser; any interpersonal affects resulting from alcohol abuse (assault, sexual assault, drunk driving, etc) are already illegal.
And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol.
On May 09 2013 04:16 Nimelrian wrote:First, I'm from Germany, take that into account reading this post. I think that the situation with guns in the US has much to do with the "general American fear". If I read something like Show nested quote +Furthermore how are kids supposed to defend themselves when they are home alone. I really ask myself what's wrong in this country. It almost sounds like you guys are afraid to fall asleep, then being killed by an intruder. I was left alone home by my parents for a couple of hours at the age of 10, one day at the age of 12, and a couple of days at the age of 14-16. Neither me, nor my parents were worried I'd get killed, or kidnapped, or whatever. I think there is no reason at all to allow children carrying guns. Firstly, because they shouldn't need them, secondly, because they don't know how to deal with them properly, as seen in the last couple of weeks. Even now, as an adult, I don't have the wish to own a gun, not to mention carry one with me. About "We have to carry guns with us because of the high crime rate in the US": Have you ever thought about the fact that your right to own guns encourages someone to commit crimes? Like, if there's a witness, you could just kill him, right?
We're not generally afraid. Would you be afraid to be in a car without airbags? I wouldn't. But I'd still prefer to have airbags just as a precaution, on the off chance that I did get into a wreck. I'm not afraid to be without a gun, but I'd prefer to have one if given a choice.
|
On May 09 2013 12:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
I don't really get the comparison to alcohol. The reason people are worried about guns isn't because people accidentally shoot themselves, but because they can be construed as a threat to other people and because they affect the potency of violence by way of being accessible. In the case of alcohol, liver disease only affects the person who drinks the alcohol, not others. Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal.
If we really want to get into it, I'd argue that excessive intake of alcohol is immoral anyhow, but it doesn't require legal measures because, ultimately, alcohol abuse only kills the abuser; any interpersonal affects resulting from alcohol abuse (assault, sexual assault, drunk driving, etc) are already illegal. And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol.
Actually the US is a good example of a country with relatively strong and responsible control over alcohol consumption. There is a fair amount of consumption (much less than in western Europe), but a good amount of control over alcohol related problems:
The world’s highest alcohol consumption levels are found in the developed world, including western and eastern Europe. High-income countries generally have the highest alcohol consumption. However, it does not follow that high income and high consumption always translate into high alcohol-related problems and high-risk drinking. Western European
countries have some of the highest consumption rates but their net alcohol-attributable mortality rates are relatively low, though their alcohol-related disease burden may be high. Many eastern European countries have the highest consumption, risky patterns of drinking and, accordingly, high levels of alcohol-related deaths and disabilities. Every fifth death is due to harmful drinking in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Outside of the Russian Federation and some neighbouring countries, rates of disease and disability attributable to alcohol are also quite high, for example, in Mexico and in most South American countries.
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/msbgsruprofiles.pdf
People did call for measures related to alcohol responsibility and lowering of alcohol problems/deaths, even if they weren't your specific imagined ones ("banning strong alcohol"). It's a public health concern + Show Spoiler +so is firearm injury and death 
The public health objective on alcohol of the World Health Organization (WHO) is to reduce the health burden caused by the harmful use of alcohol and, thereby, to save lives, reduce disease and prevent injuries. The hazardous and harmful use of alcohol is a major global contributing factor to death, disease and injury: to the
drinker through health impacts, such as alcohol dependence, liver cirrhosis, cancers and injuries; and to others through the dangerous actions of intoxicated people, such as drink– driving and violence or through the impact of drinking on fetus and child development. The harmful use of alcohol results in approximately 2.5 million deaths each year, with a net loss of life of 2.25 million, taking into account the estimated beneficial impact of low levels of alcohol use on some diseases in some population groups. Harmful drinking can also be very costly to communities and societies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
