Sally Redux

I am surprised at how upset I feel over this issue.

Can't discuss it.

Hotscot

Sorry Sally...

Mrs Danvers

Lack of humility. American Individualism. The fact that "being aggressive" appears to be rewarded and talking someone down is seen as a sign of weakness in any arena. Have you noticed people are less likely to assume fault in any situation? The winners and losers mentality.

Take your pick.

What's interesting is they're also easily scared due to the ignorance and that's another factor for the trigger happy.

RoadWarriorFromLP

It's a lot easier to get and keep a handgun in the US.

AhCrap

Is that a reason or a rationalization?

Consider the following:

88,000 deaths are caused/primarily attributed to Alcohol consumption in the USA or around ~28 per 100,000 people. There are over 150,000 injuries in the USA caused by Alcohol. In Australia the death rate for Alcohol back in ~2005 was around 14 per 100,000 people and the hospitalization rate was around 1,500 per 100,000 people. In the UK more people die from Alcohol on a per capita basis than Americans die from guns on a per capita basis.

The above argument doesn't really work when something that is not designed to kill is killing people, usually when that happens to the degree that Alcohol is you have a product recall; Then you factor in that it is killing just as many people if not more people than something that is designed to kill. Finally you also factor in that the vast majority of the deaths are accidents, so now you have a product that is not designed to kill that is in fact killing people and is more effective at killing people than something that is and get this you are not even trying to kill anyone much less yourself when it is killing people and it is all completely needless.

Quite frankly that argument is more or less destroyed by the numbers. This argument also brings up other questions:

If something is not designed to kill does that mean the number of people it can kill and or wound is unlimited? If not what is the number of people that have to die or be injured before action is taken?

Has this person supported legislation that would heavily restrict if not ban products or services or certain "protocols/procedures" that are not designed to kill on the basis of saving lives? Examples: Cocaine, Heroin, Dynamite, Environmental laws, Work Place Safety laws, etc.

If so how can they argue that because something is not designed to kill that you can't really heavily restrict it or ban it when in fact they have done just that for other things?

In your case I don't think this is really about saving people's lives as it is about getting rid of something you don't approve of, you purposefully ignore any number of behaviors that many (and nearly definitely you) participate in throughout society that kill just as many people if not more people in UK or any other "civilized" nation than firearms do in the USA on a per capita basis such as Alcohol and in some nations including casual sex(STD/Is).

I would also add that having a local or national news media that keeps pumping out stories that are designed to cause people to be afraid and suspicious of others doesn't really help. I would also add that the drug war is more "intense" in the USA than probably any other "1st world" nation, and that is not just because of guns but just the simple fact that there is more money to be made here on illegal drugs.

Finally some cities have more gang members than entire nations have gang/mafia members. LA for example has more gang members than the entire nation of Japan has Yakuza(Japanese mafia)

RoadWarriorFromLP

I'm pretty sure that alcohol-related deaths abroad don't provide Americans with much of an excuse for shooting each other.

scrubbedexpat091

And all the murders that don't involve hand guns?

American's are pretty clearly more violent then their cousins to the north.

RoadWarriorFromLP

About two-thirds do involve handguns.

Concealable compact weapons make it easier to kill. They're more handy and easier to hide until just before they are needed.

Canada has trigger lock requirements and generally makes it harder to own a handgun. The trigger locks probably contribute to fewer impulse shootings and dispute killings, since some effort has to be made before using them. That time delay can help.

scrubbedexpat091

It may, handgun deaths are on the rise though, more and more hand guns seem to be showing up from the US these days on the black market, but still nowhere near the US, although we have had a couple high profile shooting cases this year, as well as a couple stabbing sprees but murders are pretty rare in Canada on a whole, 1 city in the US can easily have more murders then all of Canada.

Steerpike

What are the 'per 100,000' figures for alcohol deaths in UK, from your sources?

This site would suggest that deaths per 100,000 from alcohol are only 1.6 (USA), 1.1 (UK), 0.9 (Australia). Source is claimed to be WHO ...

scrubbedexpat091

I am surprised Canada ranks the same as the US considering how much booze is here, can't be a poor alcoholic in this country..

Suppose all the politicians that say cheap booze will equal more deaths might be wrong considering overall booze is pretty cheap in the US.

Sally Redux

I don't see how alcohol-related deaths can be likened to getting shot in a school cafeteria.

If they were (hard to think how, but say people were using alcohol to set fire to others in schools) I would agree to regulation in a trice even though I like a drink.

Violence/guns is a chicken and egg thing, having so many creates an air of menace.

AhCrap

Well first off that link sets off my Webroot internet threat filter.

USA: Alcohol Deaths | Features | CDC

88,000 deaths a year according to the CDC for the USA the population in 2009-20011 was around 310 million people so you do 88,000 divided by 310 million and then you take that result and times it by 100,000 and that will give you a death rate of around 28 per 100,000.

For Australia I can't find the numbers for 2005 but I can find the numbers between 1992 and 2001: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/your-health...alth-australia

They have 31,000 deaths over a period of 9 years which comes out to around 3,444.44 each year, the population in 2001 was 18,972,350. When you do the same math as above it comes out to around 18 per 100,000 deaths and if you go by the number of hospitalizations that comes out to around ~290 per 100,000.

I will keep looking for the 2005 numbers.

For England: http://www.nta.nhs.uk/uploads/alcohol2012-13.pdf

15,500 died in 2010 from Alcohol in a population of around 53 million that comes out to around 29 deaths per 100,000 people. In 2011-2012 there was around 1.2 million hospitalizations or around 2,264 visits to the hospital per 100,000 caused by Alcohol.

For Scotland: Safer Drinking

All I can find is a statement stating Scotland's alcohol death rate is double that of England and Wales.

That is just it, they are both premature deaths and a premature death is a premature death regardless of what causes it, if this is about saving lives it doesn't matter if one is designed to kill and one is not.

An alcohol death and a gun death are just as preventable, one is not more preventable than the other, one is not more necessary to society than the other.

Also the homicide rate at American schools is very similar to the homicide rate of UK schools. For example in 2003 UK schools actually had a slightly higher per capita homicide rate than the 2003 homicide per capita rate of school homicides in the USA.

The truth of the matter Sally is that you believe 88,000 deaths in the USA each year is an acceptable cost so that you can drink Alcohol for recreation, nothing to be ashamed of but if you can say that 88,000 deaths is acceptable why can't any other recreational activity that kills less people but has nearly just as many people if not more people participating in it be acceptable, such as recreational ownership of guns. The only answer we keep hearing is that guns are designed to kill and Alcohol isn't and as I have already pointed out that argument doesn't work based off of the numbers. Quite simply what the argument for restricting guns is just you don't approve of guns but approve of alcohol and what is even worse is that you present the argument as saving lives but when presented that way a lot of people, especially gun owning people, would call you a hypocrite.

Any violence/homicide that is not completely committed with only using your body and only your body, meaning no drugs and or inanimate objects, is a chicken and the egg thing.

Jerseygirl

When was the last time someone went into a school armed with alcohol and killed several people? Or a child accidentally killed his brother/friend with a bottle of whiskey or can of beer?

Using alcohol or vehicles to support an argument for guns is ridiculous IMO...what next cancer/heart attack deaths?

Sally Redux

Here's a question for those who seem to be equating them.

Which would you prefer your school-aged child to do?

1. Drink a beer every day

2. Get shot