The Thing About Guns . . .

I have an opinion - I just don't think it is worth discussing it with a person who constantly ignores what is written, doesn't comprehend what is written, throws baseless accusations around based on their inability to read & comprehend what is written (multiple times), won't resolve the conversation the were actually having, and who will change the subject when they realise they haven't got a leg to stand on.

It the request of a troll.

A well lubricated Citizenry, being necessary to the enjoyment of a free State of Inebriation, the right of the people to produce, purchase, and consume Alcohol, shall not be infringed.

The founding fathers obviously knew what they were talking about. Wise men. Its what freedom is all about, for as long as history has existed. Trampling on such is taking freedom away / denying civil rights for fun - and only evil progressives do such things.

Dude! Alcohol kills more than guns! I've proven that in other threads as well. So why aren't you talking about getting rid of that shyt?

This thread is about the hypocrisy of that.

You appear to have somehow missed way the over the top facetiousness of my reply...

That aside, we've already discussed the differences in guns v alcohol and why people are more against guns, including the hypocritical aspect of such

Yeah, we'll just say that the hypocrisy is glaring and leave it at that.

No, that's what you'll say.

Yeah, and I say it because it's true.

This should be good.

So how is the lack of attention paid to alcohol deaths not a glaring hypocrisy?

No, you say it because you think it's true.

Okay, this is good. You don't think it's a glaring hypocrisy, but for the life of you, you can't defend that shortsighted thinking.

No one expected any more from you, but why don't you surprise everyone and defend your point anyway? Oh wait, you didn't make a point . . .

Apparently you did or you wouldn't have asked me to answer your dumb question.


Who's "everyone"? The three or four people who might read this thread?


The point was your using "we" to make it look as if there was a consensus when you were only talking about yourself.

Well, let's see how many posters come on down to explain how ignoring a bigger problem than guns is not glaring hypocrisy.

I defended my point. Now it's your turn to explain how it's not glaring hypocrisy to only become troubled by the issues the media instructs you to become troubled about.

Go ahead, hightor, take a position and go with it. See how far you get.

I think you are making two arguments, both of which are wrong. The first is that people/politicians are ignoring the issue of drunk driving. This is not true at all. Over the last thirty years, there have been a series of laws increasing penalties for drunk driving and making those who support it more liable while at the same time increasing education and enforcement. It's definitely different than it was when I was in college, the drinking age was 18 and beer trucks from the local beer company were parked on the quad on Friday afternoon. The second is that belief that we can't do two things at once. We can work on gun legislation at the same time that we are addressing drunk driving. Working on two or twenty issues in parallel does not make everyone hypocrites. It's nonsensical to say we can't discuss gun legislation until the issue of drunk driving is completely resolved. Both are thorny issues that will require significant time and effort to resolve. It makes sense to address them in parallel. If we've made the same progress on gun violence thirty years from now that we have made addressing drunk driving in the last thirty years, I'll be happy.

Yup. And we all know how alcohol abusers become suddenly in control of their behavior when laws are passed. Sure they are.

Sounds like you're avoiding the obvious solution and hiding behind laws that don't work.

According to the CDC (gotta love 'em), more than 140,000 people die from excessive alcohol use in the U.S. each year.

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html

Yet the graph shows a steady decline of drunk driving fatalities. I was playing in a band in the early '80s and when the more restrictive alcohol laws (OUI at or above .08% BAC) were passed the club scene basically collapsed. Those people may still be getting drunk but they aren't driving – they don't want to risk losing their license.

Meanwhile:

I show a graph showing drunk driving deaths dropping by two thirds and your conclusion is that the laws don't work? I grew up outside of New Orleans in the 70's and a ten-year-old could pretty much buy whatever alcohol he chose. Convenience stores carried full liquor sections and no one id'd anyone. My high school math club served champagne at its end of year party where just about every student was under 18. That has radically changed. The laws are clearly working. To my other point, even if we haven't solved alcohol related deaths, we can still work on gun violence. They aren't mutually exclusive.

"The Thing About Gun Zealots..."

Yeah, that doesn't cover all the damage done by alcohol. For instance, and which I've already stated, half of gun homicides are suicides, and alcohol is involved in a whole lot of those homicides. But you already know that.

Also, since all the measures taken against alcohol still leaves you with way more deaths than guns, let's just admit that the laws are a piss poor solution to the problem. Maybe if we allow people to have only beer the problem will be solved. What do you think?

Anyway, you must have decided on an acceptable limit to the death and misery caused by alcohol . . .

I do make a distinction between long term alcohol related deaths and deaths due to drunk driving since those are more consistent with gun violence deaths, but the point is that your statement that laws are a poor solution are not borne out by facts and regardless, again, we can work on two things at the same time. Gun violence, like alcohol abuse, has an activation energy. The easier it is to obtain, the fewer the barriers, the more it will happen. Increasing that initial barrier to access, whether it is alcohol or guns, has value.

In relation to your contributing factors to suicide, in particular, alcohol and firearms:

- Alcohol intoxication is involved in 22% of all suicide deaths.

- More people are struggling with mental health issues such as depression and anxiety. Many may be self-medicating with alcohol and other drugs.

- There is a popular misconception that suicide is inevitable, that suicidal ideation is a permanent condition. But most people who attempt suicide do not die—unless they use a gun. Across all suicide attempts not involving a firearm, 4 percent result in death. But for gun suicide, those statistics are flipped: Approximately 90 percent of gun suicide attempts end in death.

People with pre-existing mental health problems tend to self medicate with alcohol, meaning it is very obvious that there should be a percentage of suicide victims with alcohol in their blood.

At the same time, alcohol is also known to worse depressive disorders, but the research is unclear (that I can find) on how much this contributes to suicide attempts (how can you separate worsening mental health from the increased self medication?)

I any event, the presence of alcohol does not dictate the likelihood of a successful suicide attempt (as the success rate is less than 4%)

However, with firearms, there is a conclusive number on whether or not suicides attempts are successful - with a 90% success rate.