Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sydney Morning Herald)   Booze kills roughly three times as many people per year than guns. When will it be time to have a discussion about high capacity pint glasses and assault bourbons?   (smh.com.au ) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

3320 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jun 2014 at 12:34 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



351 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-06-27 10:43:52 AM  
We should totally make things I don't like illegal, because i like controlling other people's lives.

Unless we are talking about something I do like, of course. Then all those other busybody assholes should mind their own business.
 
2014-06-27 10:46:59 AM  

HeadLever: pueblonative: So what percentage are weapons a factor in?

First define "weapon".  Fists?  Full liquor glass bottles?  Empty beer bottles? Tables and chairs?  Pocket knifes?  Pool sticks?


Lawn furniture, styrofoam cups. I know I know. Why just the other day two men burst into my house wielding a couple of Tickle Me Elmos. I (as per gun grabber protocol) crapped my pants and dove under my bed leaving my wife and son to fend for myself. This is starting to piss off my wife. Not the bed diving (she's a Masshole and is proficlent in the deadly art of Big Bird nunchucking), but me going through more dayiapers than my son.

I even hear that there is this new type of weapon. One that can project these hard metel objects called bullets. You don't think that will catch on, do you? Oh shiat i think I need another trip to the store.
 
2014-06-27 10:54:25 AM  

pueblonative: I even hear that there is this new type of weapon. One that can project these hard metel objects called bullets. You don't think that will catch on, do you? Oh shiat i think I need another trip to the store.


I wonder why the gun stores don't have intimidating bouncers at the door, but alcohol establishments regularly employ them.

It's almost as if the people who sell booze associate it with violence and have to be prepared for it.
 
2014-06-27 10:56:37 AM  

pueblonative: Lawn furniture, styrofoam cups. I know I know. Why just the other day two men burst into my house wielding a couple of Tickle Me Elmos. I (as per gun grabber protocol) crapped my pants and dove under my bed leaving my wife and son to fend for myself. This is starting to piss off my wife. Not the bed diving (she's a Masshole and is proficlent in the deadly art of Big Bird nunchucking), but me going through more dayiapers than my son.

I even hear that there is this new type of weapon. One that can project these hard metel objects called bullets. You don't think that will catch on, do you? Oh shiat i think I need another trip to the store.


So a red herring delivered by an appeal to ridicule?  I guess if you can't even define what you are talking about, you have to divert the discussion somewhere.  Why not take the dumb it to Ludicrous Speed, amiright?
 
2014-06-27 10:56:41 AM  
Gecko Gingrich: Many states allow minors to drink under adult supervision. Even been to a Mass?

Nope, I'm not catholic.
 
2014-06-27 10:57:17 AM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: There are warning labels on liquor in the USA.

You can't carry an open beer around in the USA.

Minors, even under supervision, are prohibited from using liquor in the USA.

I can keep going. I can think of many many ways in which liquor is regulated in the USA with the purpose of minimizing the harm alcohol does to society. Similar measures with regards to guns are decried as draconian gun-grabbing anti-constitutional totalitarianism by the NRA crowd.


Yeah, this.

Of course, many of the liquor laws are ridiculous. I don't know why Americans do this thing where we either can't have ANY of something (like gluten) because reasons they saw on a talk show or the interent, OR we have way too goddam much.

Moderation is "boring," even though it's the approach to most things that makes the most sense.

America!
 
2014-06-27 10:57:30 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: I think it's safe to say that there are many more incidences of domestic violence involving alcohol than involving guns, even if you were to eliminate the ones that involve both guns and alcohol.


if it's safe I shouldn't have to go far on the internet to find evidence.  Oh, here I go:

Women face immense danger from guns in the hands of their intimate partners. From 1990-1999, 63% of the female homicides by intimate partners involved guns.1 Having one or more guns in the home make a woman 7.2 times more likely to be murdered by her intimate partner.2 According to a study of crime data from 1976-1987, more women were shot and killed by a husband or intimate acquaintance than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.3


So, don't know exactly about the incident, but I do know that a gun increases the chances of that swollen eye being exchanged for rigor mortis.
 
2014-06-27 11:00:44 AM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Of course, many of the liquor laws are ridiculous


Many of the liquor laws are an outgrowth of Puritanical laws and have nothing to to with regulating other than prohibition through attrition.
 
2014-06-27 11:04:07 AM  
When we made alcohol illegal, it resulted in significantly increased violent crime.

When significant efforts have been made to curb private ownership of firearms (australia, scandinavian countries), it results in significantly decreased violent crime.
 
2014-06-27 11:04:16 AM  

pueblonative: Lenny_da_Hog: I think it's safe to say that there are many more incidences of domestic violence involving alcohol than involving guns, even if you were to eliminate the ones that involve both guns and alcohol.

if it's safe I shouldn't have to go far on the internet to find evidence.  Oh, here I go:

Women face immense danger from guns in the hands of their intimate partners. From 1990-1999, 63% of the female homicides by intimate partners involved guns.1 Having one or more guns in the home make a woman 7.2 times more likely to be murdered by her intimate partner.2 According to a study of crime data from 1976-1987, more women were shot and killed by a husband or intimate acquaintance than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.3


So, don't know exactly about the incident, but I do know that a gun increases the chances of that swollen eye being exchanged for rigor mortis.


Meanwhile, many of those homicides are driven by alcohol. So be consistent. Be for further restrictions on alcohol if you want to restrict guns.
 
2014-06-27 11:05:34 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Meanwhile, many of those homicides are driven by alcohol. So be consistent. Be for further restrictions on alcohol if you want to restrict guns.


is "many" a statistical term?
 
2014-06-27 11:07:38 AM  

HeadLever: So a red herring delivered by an appeal to ridicule? I guess if you can't even define what you are talking about, you have to divert the discussion somewhere. Why not take the dumb it to Ludicrous Speed, amiright?


You mean just like you can list synonyms for weapon and can't list the most obvious one?

HeadLever: pueblonative: So what percentage are weapons a factor in?

First define "weapon".  Fists?  Full liquor glass bottles?  Empty beer bottles? Tables and chairs?  Pocket knifes?  Pool sticks?


And yet no mention of guns.  Why is that?  It's almost as if you're somehow afraid of calling guns what they are.  Nah, a pro-gun guy is never afraid.
 
2014-06-27 11:08:01 AM  

pueblonative: Lenny_da_Hog: I think it's safe to say that there are many more incidences of domestic violence involving alcohol than involving guns, even if you were to eliminate the ones that involve both guns and alcohol.

if it's safe I shouldn't have to go far on the internet to find evidence.  Oh, here I go:

Women face immense danger from guns in the hands of their intimate partners. From 1990-1999, 63% of the female homicides by intimate partners involved guns.1 Having one or more guns in the home make a woman 7.2 times more likely to be murdered by her intimate partner.2 According to a study of crime data from 1976-1987, more women were shot and killed by a husband or intimate acquaintance than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.3


So, don't know exactly about the incident, but I do know that a gun increases the chances of that swollen eye being exchanged for rigor mortis.


Your evidence does not address his point in the slightest.  The amount of domestic violence due to alcohol is not accounted for and cannot be compared to the information that you posted.  Plus the information you posted only accounts for deaths and not account for domestic violence.
 
2014-06-27 11:09:49 AM  

Abuse Liability: thefatbasturd: Low Budget Dave: AngryDragon: You can keep giving bullshiat comparisons?  Please do.

Can everybody play?

246.  I can choose not to drink.
247.  If I own a Starbucks, I can choose not to let people drink inside.
248.  I have never had a shot glass of vodka from three blocks away land in my back yard.
249.  I have never heard of anyone have a beer come flying into their living room and then decide to drink it.
250.  You can sometimes avoid drunk drivers just by taking the train.

I am not saying alcohol is fine.  It is a filthy addiction that has killed some of my friends and family.  Guns (to this point) have not.  But killing yourself with alcohol is largely a personal choice.  Having your child murdered by a stranger with an untreated mental illness is not.

So you agree that the answer is a better mental health system and NOT more gun laws? Cool!

It would solve both problems. Or at least put a dent in them.


Oh I sm totally serious. The problem with mass shootings has MUCH more to do with mental health issues than gun control. If these mentally unstable people are diagnosed, their are already laws in place to prevent them from owning guns. And I have yet to see one of these killers NOT described as "troubled" or "dangerous" or "threatening" or some other euphemism. Yet usually nobody does anything. And if they do, the authorities tend to ignore it. Because it's not nice to lable someone as mentally ill. So they don't. And then when somebody snaps and goes on a killing spree, idiots want to blame the guns.
 
2014-06-27 11:12:45 AM  

pueblonative: You mean just like you can list synonyms for weapon and can't list the most obvious one?


They are not synonyms.  They are a subset of a parent category.  Weapon is an umbrella term that covers more than just firearms.

And yet no mention of guns.

That is why I asked.  I wanted you to define your own assertion.  You can add guns if you want.  However, your inability to define the term (not sure if you don't know or don't want to recognize that there are other weapons other than firearms) indicates your lack of intellectual honesty regarding the assertion.
 
2014-06-27 11:13:31 AM  

HeadLever: pueblonative: Lenny_da_Hog: I think it's safe to say that there are many more incidences of domestic violence involving alcohol than involving guns, even if you were to eliminate the ones that involve both guns and alcohol.

if it's safe I shouldn't have to go far on the internet to find evidence.  Oh, here I go:

Women face immense danger from guns in the hands of their intimate partners. From 1990-1999, 63% of the female homicides by intimate partners involved guns.1 Having one or more guns in the home make a woman 7.2 times more likely to be murdered by her intimate partner.2 According to a study of crime data from 1976-1987, more women were shot and killed by a husband or intimate acquaintance than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.3


So, don't know exactly about the incident, but I do know that a gun increases the chances of that swollen eye being exchanged for rigor mortis.

Your evidence does not address his point in the slightest.  The amount of domestic violence due to alcohol is not accounted for and cannot be compared to the information that you posted.  Plus the information you posted only accounts for deaths and not account for domestic violence.


"you're more worried about the deaths than the black eyes!"
 
2014-06-27 11:17:17 AM  

pueblonative: "you're more worried about the deaths than the black eyes!"


I am more worried about you actually addressing the point instead of battling a straw man augments.  Just because you point deals with with a more serious outcome to a certain problem does not mean that it address the post you were responding to.
 
2014-06-27 11:21:57 AM  
moeburn:

But again, if I had to go to the states, a handgun would be the first thing on my list of necessities, because you're all farking nuts and I don't trust any of you.

Unfortunately that thought process is what's responsible for the sky-high rates of gun violence in the US.  The data is pretty clear that nations with more gun restrictions, less access to guns, and fewer guns on the streets have much lower rates of gun violence.  The US leads the developed world in both firearms per capita and gun deaths per capita.  Looking at the data compared to other developed nations the relationship is almost linear - we have about twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland, and a little over twice as many gun deaths per capita.  We have a little over 3x the guns per capita of France, and about 3x the per capita gun deaths.

The solution is so blindingly obvious that someone has to be monumentally thick not to get it - reduce the number of guns, and we'll reduce the number of gun deaths.

Most people have no problem taking guns from criminals, but they cling to their own vociferously.  They don't seem to get the connection that to make the entire country a safer place that they need to be willing to let their guns go.

You don't need a handgun in the US, you really don't need any gun, but I'd be willing to make exceptions for basic rifles and shotguns for hui hunters and those that choose to live out in the boonies where wild animal attacks could be an issue.  I've lived my entire life without owning a gun, and I've never been in a position where I've wished I had one.  Of my circle of friends none own guns, and none have ever needed one.

We can solve the problem, we just need to admit to ourselves that the world isn't such a scary place and that there's no reason for most of us to have guns.
 
2014-06-27 11:23:10 AM  

pueblonative: Lenny_da_Hog: Meanwhile, many of those homicides are driven by alcohol. So be consistent. Be for further restrictions on alcohol if you want to restrict guns.

is "many" a statistical term?


There's a great little table on page 2 of this PDF.

For homicide and attempted homicide of women by their domestic partners, 35.1% of assailants were drunk every day, 49.2% were considered problem drinkers.

For women abused (but not killed/attempted), those numbers go down to 11.6 and 31.1%, respectively.

For non-abused women, 1.2% of their partners were drunk every day, and 6.2% were problem drinkers.

Just be consistent. If you want to reduce violence, be against alcohol as much as you're against guns.
 
2014-06-27 11:24:47 AM  
All I wanted was some booze porn to get me through Friday at work.  Somehow the gun crazies showed up and ruined my booze thread.  Give it a rest fellas.  Go have a beer.
 
2014-06-27 11:27:43 AM  
how many times more people per year die than die from smoking weed?
 
2014-06-27 11:30:22 AM  
www.milb.com
 
2014-06-27 11:34:08 AM  
When they make a gun you can pour into a shaker with ice, add two jiggers of sour mix, shake the beejuz out of it, then strain over crushed ice and add a paper umbrella.

Or when they make a booze you can group tight at 100 yards.

Until then guns are guns and booze is booze. One is a dangerous tool used in class warfare. The other shoots bullets.
 
2014-06-27 11:34:21 AM  

thefatbasturd: The problem with mass shootings has MUCH more to do with mental health issues than gun control.


no they don't.
 
2014-06-27 11:35:05 AM  

trappedspirit: [www.milb.com image 633x356]


Cool, something that doesn't have anything to do with alcohol or guns.
 
2014-06-27 11:35:48 AM  

TwistedIvory: Bill_Wick's_Friend: There are warning labels on liquor in the USA.

You can't carry an open beer around in the USA.

Minors, even under supervision, are prohibited from using liquor in the USA.

I can keep going. I can think of many many ways in which liquor is regulated in the USA with the purpose of minimizing the harm alcohol does to society. Similar measures with regards to guns are decried as draconian gun-grabbing anti-constitutional totalitarianism by the NRA crowd.

By the way, your arguments here do fall flat. Firearms are heavily regulated. There are tons of warning labels on new firearms. Minors are prohibited from owning firearms. Carrying firearms (openly or concealed) is heavily regulated throughout the country, with each state having a different approach.

I see where you're coming from and I get it (the false equivalency argument) but the examples you set forth fall flat.


Seems they contradict his arguement - If alcohol has all these restrictions and STILL accounts for 3x as many deaths.. clearly the restrictions are useless and won't have any impact on guns either.
 
2014-06-27 11:38:24 AM  
Alcohol should not be ingested.  Just because you enjoy feeling stupid, and humanity has a long history of enjoying it, doesn't mean it should continue.  Same thing with sugar.

Look around, we're fat and stupid.  This cures a lot of it.
 
2014-06-27 11:38:53 AM  

HeadLever: pueblonative: "you're more worried about the deaths than the black eyes!"

I am more worried about you actually addressing the point instead of battling a straw man augments.  Just because you point deals with with a more serious outcome to a certain problem does not mean that it address the post you were responding to.


No, you're worried about somebody coming to take your toy, even when nobody in their right mind in this country has seriously proposed anything of the sort.  Stronger database checks and linking across state lines, controls, tracking and increased liability on guns from producer to retailer to seller (first, second, third, etc with none of this family & friends exemption bullshiat:  Ted Bundy's grandma probably thought he was so sweet he could only kill through diabetes), a fully funded ATF with a full time director.
 
2014-06-27 11:44:52 AM  

pueblonative: HeadLever: pueblonative: "you're more worried about the deaths than the black eyes!"

I am more worried about you actually addressing the point instead of battling a straw man augments.  Just because you point deals with with a more serious outcome to a certain problem does not mean that it address the post you were responding to.

No, you're worried about somebody coming to take your toy, even when nobody in their right mind in this country has seriously proposed anything of the sort.  Stronger database checks and linking across state lines, controls, tracking and increased liability on guns from producer to retailer to seller (first, second, third, etc with none of this family & friends exemption bullshiat:  Ted Bundy's grandma probably thought he was so sweet he could only kill through diabetes), a fully funded ATF with a full time director.


And do the same with alcohol. You should have to pass a background check to purchase it. If you've ever been convicted of an alcohol-related crime, your ability to buy it should be curtailed or revoked. If you buy it for someone with revoked privileges, you should be charged.
 
2014-06-27 11:46:50 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: I don't have to worry about a guy on the street trying to rob me with a bottle of schnapps.  If a kid finds his dad case of Coors he isn't going to kill himself or his friend with it.  A maniac can't use a fifth of rum to kill dozens of unsuspecting people.


A fifth of rum and a pickup...
 
2014-06-27 11:50:30 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: pueblonative: HeadLever: pueblonative: "you're more worried about the deaths than the black eyes!"

I am more worried about you actually addressing the point instead of battling a straw man augments.  Just because you point deals with with a more serious outcome to a certain problem does not mean that it address the post you were responding to.

No, you're worried about somebody coming to take your toy, even when nobody in their right mind in this country has seriously proposed anything of the sort.  Stronger database checks and linking across state lines, controls, tracking and increased liability on guns from producer to retailer to seller (first, second, third, etc with none of this family & friends exemption bullshiat:  Ted Bundy's grandma probably thought he was so sweet he could only kill through diabetes), a fully funded ATF with a full time director.

And do the same with alcohol. You should have to pass a background check to purchase it. If you've ever been convicted of an alcohol-related crime, your ability to buy it should be curtailed or revoked. If you buy it for someone with revoked privileges, you should be charged.


Because the role of alcohol in a violent incident is exactly the same as that of a gun in a violent incident.
 
2014-06-27 11:51:53 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: moeburn:

But again, if I had to go to the states, a handgun would be the first thing on my list of necessities, because you're all farking nuts and I don't trust any of you.

Unfortunately that thought process is what's responsible for the sky-high rates of gun violence in the US.  The data is pretty clear that nations with more gun restrictions, less access to guns, and fewer guns on the streets have much lower rates of gun violence.  The US leads the developed world in both firearms per capita and gun deaths per capita.  Looking at the data compared to other developed nations the relationship is almost linear - we have about twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland, and a little over twice as many gun deaths per capita.  We have a little over 3x the guns per capita of France, and about 3x the per capita gun deaths.

The solution is so blindingly obvious that someone has to be monumentally thick not to get it - reduce the number of guns, and we'll reduce the number of gun deaths.

Most people have no problem taking guns from criminals, but they cling to their own vociferously.  They don't seem to get the connection that to make the entire country a safer place that they need to be willing to let their guns go.

You don't need a handgun in the US, you really don't need any gun, but I'd be willing to make exceptions for basic rifles and shotguns for hui hunters and those that choose to live out in the boonies where wild animal attacks could be an issue.  I've lived my entire life without owning a gun, and I've never been in a position where I've wished I had one.  Of my circle of friends none own guns, and none have ever needed one.

We can solve the problem, we just need to admit to ourselves that the world isn't such a scary place and that there's no reason for most of us to have guns.


You tell me how you plan to use a law/laws to take the guns from the criminals who by definition have no broblem ignoring laws and maybe we'll talk.
 
2014-06-27 11:57:10 AM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: There are warning labels on liquor in the USA.

You can't carry an open beer around in the USA.

Minors, even under supervision, are prohibited from using liquor in the USA.

I can keep going. I can think of many many ways in which liquor is regulated in the USA with the purpose of minimizing the harm alcohol does to society. Similar measures with regards to guns are decried as draconian gun-grabbing anti-constitutional totalitarianism by the NRA crowd.


In many states you can only by liquor at stores run by the state.
 
2014-06-27 11:57:45 AM  

thefatbasturd: TuteTibiImperes: moeburn:

But again, if I had to go to the states, a handgun would be the first thing on my list of necessities, because you're all farking nuts and I don't trust any of you.

Unfortunately that thought process is what's responsible for the sky-high rates of gun violence in the US.  The data is pretty clear that nations with more gun restrictions, less access to guns, and fewer guns on the streets have much lower rates of gun violence.  The US leads the developed world in both firearms per capita and gun deaths per capita.  Looking at the data compared to other developed nations the relationship is almost linear - we have about twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland, and a little over twice as many gun deaths per capita.  We have a little over 3x the guns per capita of France, and about 3x the per capita gun deaths.

The solution is so blindingly obvious that someone has to be monumentally thick not to get it - reduce the number of guns, and we'll reduce the number of gun deaths.

Most people have no problem taking guns from criminals, but they cling to their own vociferously.  They don't seem to get the connection that to make the entire country a safer place that they need to be willing to let their guns go.

You don't need a handgun in the US, you really don't need any gun, but I'd be willing to make exceptions for basic rifles and shotguns for hui hunters and those that choose to live out in the boonies where wild animal attacks could be an issue.  I've lived my entire life without owning a gun, and I've never been in a position where I've wished I had one.  Of my circle of friends none own guns, and none have ever needed one.

We can solve the problem, we just need to admit to ourselves that the world isn't such a scary place and that there's no reason for most of us to have guns.

You tell me how you plan to use a law/laws to take the guns from the criminals who by definition have no broblem ignoring laws and maybe we'll talk.


So why have laws?
 
2014-06-27 12:00:23 PM  

pueblonative: Lenny_da_Hog: pueblonative: HeadLever: pueblonative: "you're more worried about the deaths than the black eyes!"

I am more worried about you actually addressing the point instead of battling a straw man augments.  Just because you point deals with with a more serious outcome to a certain problem does not mean that it address the post you were responding to.

No, you're worried about somebody coming to take your toy, even when nobody in their right mind in this country has seriously proposed anything of the sort.  Stronger database checks and linking across state lines, controls, tracking and increased liability on guns from producer to retailer to seller (first, second, third, etc with none of this family & friends exemption bullshiat:  Ted Bundy's grandma probably thought he was so sweet he could only kill through diabetes), a fully funded ATF with a full time director.

And do the same with alcohol. You should have to pass a background check to purchase it. If you've ever been convicted of an alcohol-related crime, your ability to buy it should be curtailed or revoked. If you buy it for someone with revoked privileges, you should be charged.

Because the role of alcohol in a violent incident is exactly the same as that of a gun in a violent incident.


Of course not. The role of alcohol in a violent incident is much more prevalent than the use of a gun in a violent incident.
 
2014-06-27 12:01:27 PM  

pueblonative: thefatbasturd: TuteTibiImperes: moeburn:

But again, if I had to go to the states, a handgun would be the first thing on my list of necessities, because you're all farking nuts and I don't trust any of you.

Unfortunately that thought process is what's responsible for the sky-high rates of gun violence in the US.  The data is pretty clear that nations with more gun restrictions, less access to guns, and fewer guns on the streets have much lower rates of gun violence.  The US leads the developed world in both firearms per capita and gun deaths per capita.  Looking at the data compared to other developed nations the relationship is almost linear - we have about twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland, and a little over twice as many gun deaths per capita.  We have a little over 3x the guns per capita of France, and about 3x the per capita gun deaths.

The solution is so blindingly obvious that someone has to be monumentally thick not to get it - reduce the number of guns, and we'll reduce the number of gun deaths.

Most people have no problem taking guns from criminals, but they cling to their own vociferously.  They don't seem to get the connection that to make the entire country a safer place that they need to be willing to let their guns go.

You don't need a handgun in the US, you really don't need any gun, but I'd be willing to make exceptions for basic rifles and shotguns for hui hunters and those that choose to live out in the boonies where wild animal attacks could be an issue.  I've lived my entire life without owning a gun, and I've never been in a position where I've wished I had one.  Of my circle of friends none own guns, and none have ever needed one.

We can solve the problem, we just need to admit to ourselves that the world isn't such a scary place and that there's no reason for most of us to have guns.

You tell me how you plan to use a law/laws to take the guns from the criminals who by definition have no broblem ignoring laws and maybe we'll talk.

So why have laws?


No. Why make NEW laws that won't work any better than the ones we have instead of just fixing the ones already in place?
 
2014-06-27 12:01:40 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: pueblonative: Lenny_da_Hog: pueblonative: HeadLever: pueblonative: "you're more worried about the deaths than the black eyes!"

I am more worried about you actually addressing the point instead of battling a straw man augments.  Just because you point deals with with a more serious outcome to a certain problem does not mean that it address the post you were responding to.

No, you're worried about somebody coming to take your toy, even when nobody in their right mind in this country has seriously proposed anything of the sort.  Stronger database checks and linking across state lines, controls, tracking and increased liability on guns from producer to retailer to seller (first, second, third, etc with none of this family & friends exemption bullshiat:  Ted Bundy's grandma probably thought he was so sweet he could only kill through diabetes), a fully funded ATF with a full time director.

And do the same with alcohol. You should have to pass a background check to purchase it. If you've ever been convicted of an alcohol-related crime, your ability to buy it should be curtailed or revoked. If you buy it for someone with revoked privileges, you should be charged.

Because the role of alcohol in a violent incident is exactly the same as that of a gun in a violent incident.

Of course not. The role of alcohol in a violent incident is much more prevalent than the use of a gun in a violent incident.


*facepalm*

I need a drink.
 
2014-06-27 12:01:47 PM  

thefatbasturd: TuteTibiImperes: moeburn:

But again, if I had to go to the states, a handgun would be the first thing on my list of necessities, because you're all farking nuts and I don't trust any of you.

Unfortunately that thought process is what's responsible for the sky-high rates of gun violence in the US.  The data is pretty clear that nations with more gun restrictions, less access to guns, and fewer guns on the streets have much lower rates of gun violence.  The US leads the developed world in both firearms per capita and gun deaths per capita.  Looking at the data compared to other developed nations the relationship is almost linear - we have about twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland, and a little over twice as many gun deaths per capita.  We have a little over 3x the guns per capita of France, and about 3x the per capita gun deaths.

The solution is so blindingly obvious that someone has to be monumentally thick not to get it - reduce the number of guns, and we'll reduce the number of gun deaths.

Most people have no problem taking guns from criminals, but they cling to their own vociferously.  They don't seem to get the connection that to make the entire country a safer place that they need to be willing to let their guns go.

You don't need a handgun in the US, you really don't need any gun, but I'd be willing to make exceptions for basic rifles and shotguns for hui hunters and those that choose to live out in the boonies where wild animal attacks could be an issue.  I've lived my entire life without owning a gun, and I've never been in a position where I've wished I had one.  Of my circle of friends none own guns, and none have ever needed one.

We can solve the problem, we just need to admit to ourselves that the world isn't such a scary place and that there's no reason for most of us to have guns.

You tell me how you plan to use a law/laws to take the guns from the criminals who by definition have no broblem ignoring laws and maybe we'll talk.


Would you legalize murder?
 
2014-06-27 12:03:34 PM  

moeburn: thefatbasturd: TuteTibiImperes: moeburn:

But again, if I had to go to the states, a handgun would be the first thing on my list of necessities, because you're all farking nuts and I don't trust any of you.

Unfortunately that thought process is what's responsible for the sky-high rates of gun violence in the US.  The data is pretty clear that nations with more gun restrictions, less access to guns, and fewer guns on the streets have much lower rates of gun violence.  The US leads the developed world in both firearms per capita and gun deaths per capita.  Looking at the data compared to other developed nations the relationship is almost linear - we have about twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland, and a little over twice as many gun deaths per capita.  We have a little over 3x the guns per capita of France, and about 3x the per capita gun deaths.

The solution is so blindingly obvious that someone has to be monumentally thick not to get it - reduce the number of guns, and we'll reduce the number of gun deaths.

Most people have no problem taking guns from criminals, but they cling to their own vociferously.  They don't seem to get the connection that to make the entire country a safer place that they need to be willing to let their guns go.

You don't need a handgun in the US, you really don't need any gun, but I'd be willing to make exceptions for basic rifles and shotguns for hui hunters and those that choose to live out in the boonies where wild animal attacks could be an issue.  I've lived my entire life without owning a gun, and I've never been in a position where I've wished I had one.  Of my circle of friends none own guns, and none have ever needed one.

We can solve the problem, we just need to admit to ourselves that the world isn't such a scary place and that there's no reason for most of us to have guns.

You tell me how you plan to use a law/laws to take the guns from the criminals who by definition have no broblem ignoring laws and maybe we'll talk.

Would you legalize murder?


What the FARK are you on about?
 
2014-06-27 12:04:50 PM  

thefatbasturd: pueblonative: thefatbasturd: TuteTibiImperes: moeburn:

But again, if I had to go to the states, a handgun would be the first thing on my list of necessities, because you're all farking nuts and I don't trust any of you.

Unfortunately that thought process is what's responsible for the sky-high rates of gun violence in the US.  The data is pretty clear that nations with more gun restrictions, less access to guns, and fewer guns on the streets have much lower rates of gun violence.  The US leads the developed world in both firearms per capita and gun deaths per capita.  Looking at the data compared to other developed nations the relationship is almost linear - we have about twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland, and a little over twice as many gun deaths per capita.  We have a little over 3x the guns per capita of France, and about 3x the per capita gun deaths.

The solution is so blindingly obvious that someone has to be monumentally thick not to get it - reduce the number of guns, and we'll reduce the number of gun deaths.

Most people have no problem taking guns from criminals, but they cling to their own vociferously.  They don't seem to get the connection that to make the entire country a safer place that they need to be willing to let their guns go.

You don't need a handgun in the US, you really don't need any gun, but I'd be willing to make exceptions for basic rifles and shotguns for hui hunters and those that choose to live out in the boonies where wild animal attacks could be an issue.  I've lived my entire life without owning a gun, and I've never been in a position where I've wished I had one.  Of my circle of friends none own guns, and none have ever needed one.

We can solve the problem, we just need to admit to ourselves that the world isn't such a scary place and that there's no reason for most of us to have guns.

You tell me how you plan to use a law/laws to take the guns from the criminals who by definition have no broblem ignoring laws and maybe we'll talk.

So why have laws?

No. Why make NEW laws that won't work any better than the ones we have instead of just fixing the ones already in place?


Uh because society changes over time and laws have to adjust to those changes and changing old laws by definition creates new laws. Oh and the side screaming enforce the old laws has spent the last two decades undermining those laws in the first place.
 
2014-06-27 12:05:45 PM  

pueblonative: Lenny_da_Hog: I think it's safe to say that there are many more incidences of domestic violence involving alcohol than involving guns, even if you were to eliminate the ones that involve both guns and alcohol.

if it's safe I shouldn't have to go far on the internet to find evidence.  Oh, here I go:

Women face immense danger from guns in the hands of their intimate partners. From 1990-1999, 63% of the female homicides by intimate partners involved guns.1 Having one or more guns in the home make a woman 7.2 times more likely to be murdered by her intimate partner.2 According to a study of crime data from 1976-1987, more women were shot and killed by a husband or intimate acquaintance than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.3


So, don't know exactly about the incident, but I do know that a gun increases the chances of that swollen eye being exchanged for rigor mortis.


Correlation does not equal causation. God damn arm chair scientists.

Is it possible an aggressive personality type is more likely to carry dangerous weapons and abuse their spouse?
 
2014-06-27 12:12:02 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: mod3072: TuteTibiImperes: I don't have to worry about a guy on the street trying to rob me with a bottle of schnapps.  If a kid finds his dad case of Coors he isn't going to kill himself or his friend with it.  A maniac can't use a fifth of rum to kill dozens of unsuspecting people.

Exactly! Alcohol ONLY hurts the people who use it and has no effect whatsoever on family members and/or complete strangers. Well, unless those people drink that booze and then climb behind the wheel of their SUV and mow down your entire family as you walk down the street. Or, I suppose, if they get drunk and violent and stab you in the face for eyeballin' their woman. Or if your parent/spouse/whoever likes to get hammered and then use you as a punching bag. Other than that though, alcohol abuse is pretty much victimless, unlike those scary guns that constantly thirst for the blood of the innocent.

Assault is illegal even if you aren't under the influence of alcohol.  Drunk driving is alcohol related, sure, but it's also illegal, and the police can legally set up checkpoints to check for drunk drivers, or pull people over if they suspect they are driving drunk.

The closest gun equivalent to drunk driving would be concealed and open carry.  It takes the risk of gun ownership and brings it into the public, just like drunk driving takes the risk of alcohol consumption and brings it into the public.  The big difference is that we believe people have the constitutional right to carry guns around.  The police can't set up checkpoints to see if people are carrying legally or illegally, and they can't pull people over based on the suspicious of a gun in the vehicle.

Outlawing something doesn't make it go away, but we as a country are pretty damn harsh on drunk drivers.


As a country we're also pretty harsh on murdering someone with a firearm (among other things).  Okay, now your turn.
 
2014-06-27 12:13:09 PM  

thefatbasturd: TuteTibiImperes: moeburn:

But again, if I had to go to the states, a handgun would be the first thing on my list of necessities, because you're all farking nuts and I don't trust any of you.

Unfortunately that thought process is what's responsible for the sky-high rates of gun violence in the US.  The data is pretty clear that nations with more gun restrictions, less access to guns, and fewer guns on the streets have much lower rates of gun violence.  The US leads the developed world in both firearms per capita and gun deaths per capita.  Looking at the data compared to other developed nations the relationship is almost linear - we have about twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland, and a little over twice as many gun deaths per capita.  We have a little over 3x the guns per capita of France, and about 3x the per capita gun deaths.

The solution is so blindingly obvious that someone has to be monumentally thick not to get it - reduce the number of guns, and we'll reduce the number of gun deaths.

Most people have no problem taking guns from criminals, but they cling to their own vociferously.  They don't seem to get the connection that to make the entire country a safer place that they need to be willing to let their guns go.

You don't need a handgun in the US, you really don't need any gun, but I'd be willing to make exceptions for basic rifles and shotguns for hui hunters and those that choose to live out in the boonies where wild animal attacks could be an issue.  I've lived my entire life without owning a gun, and I've never been in a position where I've wished I had one.  Of my circle of friends none own guns, and none have ever needed one.

We can solve the problem, we just need to admit to ourselves that the world isn't such a scary place and that there's no reason for most of us to have guns.

You tell me how you plan to use a law/laws to take the guns from the criminals who by definition have no broblem ignoring laws and maybe we'll talk.


Turn off the gushing fountain of guns and eventually the supply of illicit guns will dry up. That means that hand guns, assault weapons, and most gun shops need to go.  It means that law abiding citizens will have to turn in most of their weapons as well (I'd support reimbursement for fair market value).

When the guns have been greatly reduced the guns criminals use will be taken away when they're found.  Over time the criminals' guns will be almost entirely taken away, and with the supply of guns in general greatly constricted they won't be able to easily replace them.
 
2014-06-27 12:15:00 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Giltric: TuteTibiImperes: Assault is illegal even if you aren't under the influence of alcohol.

TuteTibiImperes: mod3072: TuteTibiImperes: I don't have to worry about a guy on the street trying to rob me with a bottle of schnapps.  If a kid finds his dad case of Coors he isn't going to kill himself or his friend with it.  A maniac can't use a fifth of rum to kill dozens of unsuspecting people.

Exactly! Alcohol ONLY hurts the people who use it and has no effect whatsoever on family members and/or complete strangers. Well, unless those people drink that booze and then climb behind the wheel of their SUV and mow down your entire family as you walk down the street. Or, I suppose, if they get drunk and violent and stab you in the face for eyeballin' their woman. Or if your parent/spouse/whoever likes to get hammered and then use you as a punching bag. Other than that though, alcohol abuse is pretty much victimless, unlike those scary guns that constantly thirst for the blood of the innocent.

Assault is illegal even if you aren't under the influence of alcohol.  Drunk driving is alcohol related, sure, but it's also illegal, and the police can legally set up checkpoints to check for drunk drivers, or pull people over if they suspect they are driving drunk.

The closest gun equivalent to drunk driving would be concealed and open carry.  It takes the risk of gun ownership and brings it into the public, just like drunk driving takes the risk of alcohol consumption and brings it into the public.  The big difference is that we believe people have the constitutional right to carry guns around.  The police can't set up checkpoints to see if people are carrying legally or illegally, and they can't pull people over based on the suspicious of a gun in the vehicle.

Outlawing something doesn't make it go away, but we as a country are pretty damn harsh on drunk drivers.

Checkpoints are illegal in a dozen states or so as per state law or interpretation of state constitution.

Shoot ...


Very few places have laws against carrying alcohol in public either.  (Closed, not open).  A firearm in a holster is the equivalent in your argument to an unopened bottle of Jack Daniels.
 
2014-06-27 12:17:22 PM  

pueblonative: No, you're worried about somebody coming to take your toy, even when nobody in their right mind in this country has seriously proposed anything of the sort.


No I am not, but I am starting to figure out how you argue things.  Take a point and rebut it with something that has absolutely nothing to do with the original point.

It is no wonder why the gun grabbers have failed at pretty much every attempt they have undertaken in the last few decades.  If you are going to change this, starting to be intellectually honest about the issue will be the first step.  If you cannot lift yourself to some basic level of integrity regarding this issue, then I guess you just need to be content in your failures.

It is your choice.
 
2014-06-27 12:19:22 PM  

thefatbasturd: stan unusual: Let's have the discussion when distillers start optimizing their product for its lethality or its knock down power and sell it to us as a means of defending our homes against the government's "jack booted thugs" or home invaders.  Until then, just STFU.

Or, you know, optimizing their product to make you farked up stupid and a danger to others all the while selling it to us as a refreshing way to relax.


Alcohol doesn't just jump in  your mouth- it's an inanimate object. Don't blame the alcohol, blame the alcoholic.  It's not alcohol that's the problem, it's mentally ill people with alcohol that are the problem.  Regulations on alcohol violate my Twenty-first Amendment rights.  Liquor licenses are the first step towards prohibition. Obama is coming for your alcohol.  Everclear- get your man card back. When Alcohol is outlawed only outlaws will have alcohol.

One shot of alcohol won't  kill you, but one shot from a gun can.  No one formulates their alcoholic beverage with an eye to insuring it will kill you or anyone else.  Get it now?
 
2014-06-27 12:19:53 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Turn off the gushing fountain of guns and eventually the supply of illicit guns will dry up.


Better repeal the Second Amendment first.  Good luck with that.
 
2014-06-27 12:22:27 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: thefatbasturd: TuteTibiImperes: moeburn:

But again, if I had to go to the states, a handgun would be the first thing on my list of necessities, because you're all farking nuts and I don't trust any of you.

Unfortunately that thought process is what's responsible for the sky-high rates of gun violence in the US.  The data is pretty clear that nations with more gun restrictions, less access to guns, and fewer guns on the streets have much lower rates of gun violence.  The US leads the developed world in both firearms per capita and gun deaths per capita.  Looking at the data compared to other developed nations the relationship is almost linear - we have about twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland, and a little over twice as many gun deaths per capita.  We have a little over 3x the guns per capita of France, and about 3x the per capita gun deaths.

The solution is so blindingly obvious that someone has to be monumentally thick not to get it - reduce the number of guns, and we'll reduce the number of gun deaths.

Most people have no problem taking guns from criminals, but they cling to their own vociferously.  They don't seem to get the connection that to make the entire country a safer place that they need to be willing to let their guns go.

You don't need a handgun in the US, you really don't need any gun, but I'd be willing to make exceptions for basic rifles and shotguns for hui hunters and those that choose to live out in the boonies where wild animal attacks could be an issue.  I've lived my entire life without owning a gun, and I've never been in a position where I've wished I had one.  Of my circle of friends none own guns, and none have ever needed one.

We can solve the problem, we just need to admit to ourselves that the world isn't such a scary place and that there's no reason for most of us to have guns.

You tell me how you plan to use a law/laws to take the guns from the criminals who by definition have no broblem ignoring laws and maybe we'll t ...


LOL.  Enjoy a huge black market and trying to un-invent something that can be made in a machine shop.  What was one of the arguments for ending prohibition on alcohol and more recently weed?

\"Gushing fountain of guns" phhh
\\ tell me what the fair market value would be...remember as supply decreases, demand (and value) increases, so the last gun in civilan hands would be worth MILLIONS, unless the government just gets to set the value for something they've just made illegal, in which case the value would be set at $0, that's called confiscation
 
2014-06-27 12:22:42 PM  

stan unusual: Get it now?


That you are good at false equivalencies?  Yep.  Clear as Everclear (before you slam it).
 
2014-06-27 12:26:42 PM  

stan unusual: No one formulates their alcoholic beverage with an eye to insuring it will kill you or anyone else.  Get it now?


Power companies don't burn coal with an eye to ensuring an increase in greenhouse gases, so it's okay that the ice caps are melting.
 
Displayed 50 of 351 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report