Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philosophyabsurdity. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're probably looking for old friends, or old enemies. Don't panic! They still exist. Sure, they've forgotten about you. It's just the internet. But with passion, intellect and an enormous penis you can force your way back into their affections or the sex offenders register. So type a message. Expect a witty response. It's all for you... you just might have to wait 2 or 3 years.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Virginia Tech and Gun Laws; Someone had to do it
Topic Started: Apr 18 2007, 03:35 PM (3,149 Views)
ThePlague
Unregistered

You'll have to point out where I defended any gun laws. Go ahead, I'll wait.

While I'm waiting, I'll tell you again the similarity between the guns and alcohol: both have the ability to be abused, and in so doing, can cause harm to others even (Gasp!) the children. Certain classes of crimes would be reduced if a government curtailed their availability. Likewise, in both cases, such statistical increase in safety would come at the price of personal freedom. I find it...interesting...that you want the government to nanny with guns, but not alcohol. I wonder if that has anything to do with your personal tastes for recreational activity?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
My personal tastes for recreational activity?

I think some drugs are great, Plague, but I don't agree with the legalization of any. While doing them I also acknowledged it was a legal risk. I've never fought for the legalization of drugs.

I agree with the current laws regarding alcohol consumption, including set prices, blood alcohol limit while driving, set hours of sale, etc...Just as I agree with the current gun laws my country has.

For the last time, I don't see alcohol and drugs as "similar" to guns...I think a person who ignores the mass harm a gun can do and equates a gun with a beer has a serious problem.

And yes, you seem fine with the current gun legislation - this thread was about MORE legislation, and you haven't uttered one complaint about the current laws being unconstitutional...

Are you claiming now there shouldn't be any gun laws, Plague? Because if you are I stand corrected. And if you aren't, thanks for just wasting my time.

Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

I believe any citizen has the right to arm themselves, free of government interferrence. "Shall not be infringed", and all that.

I found this very interesting:

Quote:
 
I think some drugs are great, Plague, but I don't agree with the legalization of any. While doing them I also acknowledged it was a legal risk. I've never fought for the legalization of drugs.


So, basically, the state should prevent people from doing any sort of drugs, but you're fine with breaking that law you approve? What's the point of the law, then? To add a certain cachet to the activity?

I also see you're fine with the status quo, including your government's regulation of alcohol. That's great, but that's not the issue. If alcohol were prohibited or regulated like you want for guns, then your society would show a decrease in alcohol-related fatalities and crimes, such as drunk driving. You would be safer. Why are you fine with your government not further nannying its citizens with respect to alcohol in the interest of safety but fine with the state-sponsored violation of rights with respect to arms? Why shouldn't drinkers register with the government as being such? Since you are fine with drugs being illegal even though you did them ( :huh: ), requiring registration for drug use would be moot. I suppose you would be fine with someone running into drug-related "legal issues" being required to register as such, much in the manner of sex offenders.

After all, think of the children.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Ah, another desperate attempt at this argument - misdirection.

Quote:
 
So, basically, the state should prevent people from doing any sort of drugs, but you're fine with breaking that law you approve? What's the point of the law, then? To add a certain cachet to the activity?


People do things that are illegal all the time - like speeding. You've never gone over the speed limit, Plague? Never had a drop of alcohol until you were 21, Plague?

Could we get a little more off-topic?

It's a sign of an incredibly weak argument when a person has to resort to debating an entirely different subject in an attempt to "win" at something...

As for the rest of your argument, um, alcohol IS regulated. What are you talking about? Alcohol, like gun ownership in Canada, is regulated. Regulated by hours sold, minimum drink prices, establishments allowed to serve liquor, drinking age, etc.

You're having a really, really hard time grasping this, Plague. I'll slow it down for you:

I believe guns should be heavily regulated. Countries that have heavy restrictions on guns have death-by-gun rates which reflect this. Countries that have heavy fines regarding drunk driving ALSO have lower drunk driving rates - thus reflecting this.

Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

The difference is I do not support those laws. You claim to, yet you are/were comfortable breaking them. My idea of supporting a law is to actually, you know, follow it my own life.

Now who's trying to sidetrack? My point is that your society would be safer if alcohol were prohibited, drastically reducing the incidence of drunk driving. You do not support that draconian step, throwing away the opportunity to make things safer, yet you support gun laws.

Now, let's look at some statistics. According to this Canadian site:
Quote:
 
Canadians made 10.2 million drunk driving trips in Canada during the last year when they felt they were over the legal alcohol limit.


That's .3 per person. Or, to compare it the per capita normalization used previously (per 100k), we have the following breakdown:

US total firearm death rate: 3.72 per 100,000
CN total firearm death rate: 0.76 per 100,000
CN total drunk driving rate: 30,000 per 100,000

You think guns should be regulated as stringently as they are, yet you're fine with the current regulations for alcohol? Given those numbers, shouldn't alcohol be at least as stringently regulated as guns, including requiring a government permit to be allowed to drink? It would make things safer, there's no doubt about that.

Now, before you try to twist things, I am not advocating drinking licenses. Far from it. I'm just pointing out that you are being very inconsistent in your safety justification for draconian gun regulation but being perfectly fine with the level of alcohol regulation.

According to this site, there were about 1000 alcohol-related driving fatalities in Canada in 2004. That's 3 per 100,000, which is comparable to the US firearm death rate. You support the draconian gun laws in Canada, but you are fine with the comparably lax alcohol control laws even though they yield a death rate comparable to the US firearm death rate. Why not require drinkers to be licensed by the government?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
And that is why I support Drunk Driving checks.

Next?
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
This argument can be answered in a handful of sentences. I am ever grateful to Pestiferous for dredging out the meat though.

On a secondary, it seems as though Plague knows his supported ideal is wrong. I shall put a modicum of effort into explaining why on the morrow.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

That doesn't answer the question, at all. Why not have laws for alcohol consumption comparable to firearms? Such as licensing drinkers, alcohol products, etc, in a way comparable to firearms. After all, it's only safety you're concerned about, and apparently the firearm fatality rates of the US make you look in horror, but comparable alcohol-related driving fatality rates in Canada leave you fine with the level of regulation.

Now, let's look at what these statistics really mean. The US rate is 3.72/100k, while the Canadian is 0.76/100k. This means the probability of being killed by a firearm per year in each country is:

US: 0.0000372
CN: 0.0000076

Thus, the probability of not being killed by firearms per year is simply 1 minus this number:

US: 0.9999628
CN: 0.9999924

Now, let's say the average lifespan is 75 years. The probability of not being killed over the course of life is simply the above number by itself 75 times ( P(Not killed in lifetime) = {P(Not killed in one year)}^Lifespan ):

US: 0.99721
CN: 0.99943

So, all the hoopla, scare tactics, and draconian laws yield a 0.2% decreased chance of being killed by a firearm in CN. I know your position is that you "feel safer", and I hope that 0.2% let's you sleep better at night, but it's a very insignificant difference. I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice my liberty for it, but some people apparently are. Even compared to those countries that completely prohibit firearms, they only gain a 0.279% advantage. This is even assuming that there is a 0% chance that a firearm can save your life, that possessing one can not add to your life expectancy by decreasing your chance of dying by non-firearm related method (i.e. knife or pointy stick).
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Quote:
 
Why not have laws for alcohol consumption comparable to firearms? Such as licensing drinkers, alcohol products, etc, in a way comparable to firearms



Because a can of beer isn't comparable to a gun.

You can moderately and responsibly drink a beer.

You cannot moderately and responsibly shoot and kill a toddler with a gun.

If you've found a way to do this, we'd love to know.

Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
Wes, I'm doing my usual - just so you and Plague know. :wub:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cygnus-X1
Member Avatar
Davros Valid
Quote:
 
Why not have laws for alcohol consumption comparable to firearms?


Drunk-driving fatalities could be just as successfully curbed by regulation of driving privileges as of drinking privileges. Drunk-driving isn't really an issue where I live, because we never need to drive anywhere in the city. We can stumble home, or to the subway, or, at worst, call a car. So, that's one point - the fact that it's the combination of two well-defined objects, alcohal and automobiles, that causes the fatalities, as opposed to one well-defined object, a firearm.

But, to answer the point more directly: because the risk/benefit ratio is greater for firearm ownership than for alcohal consumption. Further, some of the benefits of firearm ownership can be attained by the curtailing of firearm ownership, namely, protection from other people with firearms who would do harm if not stopped by means of a firearm.

Alcohal has well-defined benefits - physiological, psychological and social - which firearms lack. Firearms have the benefit of being able to kill animals, and, for this reason, firearms made for this purpose - rifles and shotguns - are not as heavily regulated as firearms made for the purpose of killing humans. (Sportsmanship can also be enjoyed with hunting firearms.)

It's not appropriate to compare gunshot deaths to drunk-driving deaths, because the former involves one object, which the vast majority of people do not have any need to use on a daily, or, even, weekly basis; whereas, drunk-driving involves two objects, both of which can be considered somewhat necessary, on a regular basis. And, in those unfortunate moments when the two needs intersect, drunk-driving occurs. As I mentioned, where I live, drunk driving is not such a big problem. And, if it were, it could just as readily be solved by regulating the driving as the drinking.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's Friday night, and I'm going to the pub.

On foot, of course.
* This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Ah, but the question isn't "responsibly shooting and killing a toddler", it's responsibly owning guns which the vast vast majority of even "trigger happy" americans do. If you were to apply the same criteria to alcohol as you do to firearms, the issue wouldn't be "You can moderately and responsibly drink a beer", it would be that you can't responsibly kill someone while drunk driving, at a rate comparable to the firearm fatality rate in the "dangerous" States. All of 0.2% more dangerous in that regard than Canada, and 0.28% more dangerous than those poor countries where firearms have been completely denied to the populace.

Some people will sell their freedom for a pittance of safety. I guess that's the modern way, though it is odd how different statistically similar problems are addressed. Shrug.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Quote:
 
Ah, but the question isn't "responsibly shooting and killing a toddler", it's responsibly owning guns which the vast vast majority of even "trigger happy" americans do. If you were to apply the same criteria to alcohol as you do to firearms, the issue wouldn't be "You can moderately and responsibly drink a beer", it would be that you can't responsibly kill someone while drunk driving, at a rate comparable to the firearm fatality rate in the "dangerous" States.



No - because if you're talking about consumption of beer (use of the product) to get wasted (as is your claim) then you have to talk about use of the gun as well.

Which includes shooting people.

So your argument doesn't hold up. You can moderately consume alcohol. You cannot moderately shoot and kill a toddler. Drunk driving, as Cyg pointed out and you clearly ignored, is a compounding of factors, and not a direct result of drinking. It's a direct result of drinking AND driving - into much different territory. I'd also like to point out that drunk driving actually adheres to a much stricter set of regulations and consequences than irresponsible gun ownership, including incarceration in certain cases.

Again, Plague, you're reaching here. Do we really need to sit through another post of yours, weakly insisting alcohol is comparable to guns?

I'm beginning to think you just like looking ridiculous. *shrug*
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Once again, you are ignoring the fundamental parallel.

Guns can be used to cause harm. As a result, you think draconian measures should be instituted to control access to them.

Alcohol can be used to cause harm. However, you are fine with the comparably lax standards for alcohol access even though just drunk driving fatality rates in Canada are comparable to the firearms homicide rates in the states. If you're only interested in safety, then it would follow that alcohol should be regulated in a manner comparable to guns, including registration with the state for every purchase.

Of course, the safety is an illusion, or more precisely, an incredibly small benefit. It amounts to a 0.2% decreased chance of being murdered by a firearm over the course of a 75 year lifespan. You would almost certainly get a comparable effect if similar control methods were instituted for alcohol. It's fairly obvious that you're willing to sacrifice others rights to arm themselves by putting undue burdens on them, but not your own right to easy alcohol access even though statistically the death rates are comparable.

You can moderately consume a beer, and you can moderately use a gun. A moderate use of a gun would not include shooting a toddler. That would be comparable to killing someone while drunk driving. As I've shown, the incidence of drinking related driving fatalities alone is comparable to firearms. So, why not register alcohol sales? After all, one can not moderately kill someone while drunk driving.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Quote:
 
Alcohol can be used to cause harm. However, you are fine with the comparably lax standards for alcohol access even though just drunk driving fatality rates in Canada are comparable to the firearms homicide rates in the states. If you're only interested in safety, then it would follow that alcohol should be regulated in a manner comparable to guns, including registration with the state for every purchase



THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL PARALLEL BETWEEN ALCOHOL AND GUNS.

Anything can be used to cause harm - you're ignoring the fact that guns are created with the SPECIFIC INTENTION of causing harm. With your weak argument, we could apply the same rules to baseball bats, forks, plastic spoons and q-tips.

What's next, Plague? Going to argue that plastic spoons should only be sold to registered users to keep this tedious plight of yours going?

Read slowly: Unlike alcohol, guns only have one use. To discharge a bullet at a force strong enough to kill the intended target. Therefore, guns are regulated with that one use in mind.

Alcohol, however, has many uses. It is regulated with those uses in mind.

Perhaps this is the entire problem with American society...devaluing a gun to the point where it is worth the same (in an argument) as a can of beer.

And what is better than having it said by an American himself? Lol.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xx_SwordWords_xX
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
Quote:
 
Wes, I'm doing my usual - just so you and Plague know.  :wub:



Drinking 3 bottles of wine and attempting to chat or post?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

There is an exact parallel between the misuse of alcohol and the misuse of firearms. And since you like the absurd regulation of guns, it only follows from a safety perspective that you should like an equally absurd regulation of alcohol, or baseball bats, or pointy sticks, or anything else that can be misused to cause harm.

Of course, that's only if you were using a rational argument. As you've admitted, you "feel safer" with firearms regulated, while apparently you don't think alcohol should be subject to the same scrutiny even though it causes as many deaths per capita in Canada and the scary guns do in the US. This just goes to show that your basic argument is exactly the same as those wanting to prohibit drugs or same-sex marriage: I don't like it, it scares me, and I don't think anyone should be allowed to do it.

Pfft.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
You're not even making sense now.

You've crossed over into the realm of absolute crap. You lost this debate the second you couldn't defend gun statistics on their own.

More people die from cancer than gun wounds - we get it.

That doesn't make guns safe enough to go unregulated.

You don't get that.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Of course they shouldn't be regulated. It's a fundamental human right to defend oneself, and no government can be trusted to regulate it. The danger posed by guns is miniscule statistically, so your safety argument doesn't hold up. Even a complete seizure of guns only yields a less than 0.3% decrease in lifetime probability of being murdered by a firearm. And, of course, this implicitly assumes that a firearm provides zero protection value against homicide by other means. That is, that there is never a case where a firearm actually protects someone. This is an absurd assumption, of course, but even granting that generous postulate still leaves a tiny virtually insignificant "advantage" to strict firearm regulation. If you insist on a safety argument, then not insisting on the same level of regulation for other potentially dangerous items simply shows a bias, probably the result of splashy sensationalistic media.

I have defended gun statistics on their own. You gain a 0.2% mortality advantage at the cost of freedom. You're willing to make that "sacrifice", because it makes you "feel safer", and presumably, you're not interested in owning a gun yourself. Consequently, to gain that slight "safety advantage" (assuming as above), you support trampling on the rights of others.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Yup, I'll take that miniscule number.

See, Plague, when I was a little girl I was a hostage in a bank robbery. Now, the chances of being a hostage in a bank robbery are tiny - miniscule, really.

But it happens. Happenned to me, my mother, and my sister.

So you're right - I will take that decreased risk...because it's a decreased risk.

And I'm perhaps more aware of what can happen than you'll ever be.

Again, the right to bear arms doesn't exist in my country. And we have have the lower rate of murder by firearms to prove it. As does Britain.

Beer - has other uses. Guns - no other uses. It's not a bias I have against guns, Plague - it's common fucking sense. I recognize gun use, I agree with obtaining permits for hunting. But using your argument, owning a gun does not increase your chances of NOT dying by gunfire.

At all.

We're never going to agree on this because your view is completely irrational and desperate. More gun enforcement equals lower gun crime rates.

It's proven.

Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General · Next Topic »
Add Reply