Ban alcohol

Alcohol's kill rate is far, far lower. Out of all the people that ingest alcohol, how many end up killing someone?

Guns are batting much higher. Out of all the people that discharge a gun, many more end up killing someone.

Which is what you'd expect when you compare a substance to a killing machine.
 
Alcohol's kill rate is far, far lower. Out of all the people that ingest alcohol, how many end up killing someone?

Guns are batting much higher. Out of all the people that discharge a gun, many more end up killing someone.

Which is what you'd expect when you compare a substance to a killing machine.
Guns are very scary to you huh?
 
Not really but....

Every day 28 people die in an alcohol-related car accident

  • In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
  • 209 0 to 14 yr old were killed in 2015
  • The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $44 billion
https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

So due to alcohol 10,000 people a year die. There Is zero benefit to alcohol.

That's just traffic accidents.



In 2017 there were 15,549 people killed by guns in the United States in 2017.

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/gun-deaths-increase-2017/

We'll look at that those numbers..Those are pretty comparable. I don't understand why we're not all talking about banning alcohol. what's the difference?

Legit question

I'm cool with it as long as they band certain guns too.
 
A 2-3/4 slug has twice the stopping of a .223 at close range, so no. But I suppose if you live in an apartment, the rifle is safer since the slug will go through anything in it's path.


IMO stopping power is very far down the list on what makes a gun good for defensive use

consistent shots on target as fast as possible > stopping power

my best example is this video of a gentleman taking multiple 40 cal rounds to the chest and RUNNING out of the business

 
IMO stopping power is very far down the list on what makes a gun good for defensive use

consistent shots on target as fast as possible > stopping power

my best example is this video of a gentleman taking multiple 40 cal rounds to the chest and RUNNING out of the business



I agree that for accuracy, especially at 50+ yards a rifle is best but a 45 cal round simply cannot be compared to a 2-3/4 or 3in slug. It's like comparing getting punched with MMA gloves to getting punched with steel boxing gloves.
 
I agree that for accuracy, especially at 50+ yards a rifle is best but a 45 cal round simply cannot be compared to a 2-3/4 or 3in slug. It's like comparing getting punched with MMA gloves to getting punched with steel boxing gloves.

distance doenst matter when your follow up rounds end up in the ceiling because you are in a life or death situation and you need to fire your gun as fast as possible

with the same comparison, the time it takes for you to throw 3 punches with your steel gloves the person with MMA gloves would have thrown 15 or 20

so you better hope those 3 punches didnt end up in the ceiling


*edit*

i apologize ive digressed greatly and we are debating something that has been and will be debated for decades, have a great day!
 
distance doenst matter when your follow up rounds end up in the ceiling because you are in a life or death situation and you need to fire your gun as fast as possible

with the same comparison, the time it takes for you to throw 3 punches with your steel gloves the person with MMA gloves would have thrown 15 or 20

so you better hope those 3 punches didnt end up in the ceiling


I think you fantasize about this way too much.
 
Well, I don't know about zero benefit. Probably half the posters in here can owe their life to a little bit of liquid courage between their parents.
 
I think this piece by Tyler Cowen on the subject is pretty thought provoking.

I receive many emails asking me what is my attitude toward guns and gun control. I would say I wish it worked better than it does (a key point), I don’t think it works very well, I am happy to make those changes which seem to work somewhat, but overall I see an America with lots of guns and a falling crime and murder rate, so let’s focus on what is working, whatever that may be.

I would be happier if advocates of stronger gun control would state up front what percentage of the variation in the murder rate they thought they would be controlling. I see them as likely to make some dent in the suicide rate, most of all.

I would gladly see a cultural shift toward the view that gun ownership is dangerous and undesirable, much as the cultural attitudes toward smoking have shifted since the 1960s.

I am, however, consistent. I also think we should have a cultural shift toward the view that alcohol — and yes I mean all alcohol — is at least as dangerous and undesirable. I favor a kind of voluntary prohibition on alcohol. It is obvious to me that alcohol is one of the great social evils and when I read the writings of the prohibitionists, while I don’t agree with their legal remedies, their arguments make sense to me. It remains one of the great undervalued social movements. For mostly cultural reasons, it is now a largely forgotten remnant of progressivism and it probably will stay that way, given that “the educated left” mostly joined with America’s shift to being “a wine nation” in the 1970s.

Guns, like alcohol, have many legitimate uses, and they are enjoyed by many people in a responsible manner. In both cases, there is an elite which has absolutely no problems handling the institution in question, but still there is the question of whether the nation really can have such bifurcated social norms, namely one set of standards for the elite and another set for everybody else.

In part our guns problem is an alcohol problem. According to Mark Kleiman, half the people in prison were drinking when they did whatever they did. (Admittedly the direction of causality is murky but theory points in some rather obvious directions.) Our car crash problem – which kills many thousands of Americans each year — is also in significant part an alcohol problem. There are connections between alcohol and wife-beating and numerous other social ills, including health issues of course.

It worries me when people focus on “guns” and do not accord an equivalent or indeed greater status to “alcohol” as a social problem. Many of those people drink lots of alcohol, and would not hesitate to do so in front of their children, although they might regard owning an AK-47, or showing a pistol to the kids, as repugnant. I believe they are a mix of hypocritical and unaware, even though many of these same individuals have very high IQs and are well schooled in the social sciences. Perhaps they do not want to see the parallels.

The people who get this right — it seems to me — are the Mormons. Compassion, most of all for the poor, means that we should raise the social status of Mormons on this issue.

I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

http://marginalrevolution.com/margi...e-culture-of-guns-the-culture-of-alcohol.html
 
Back
Top