Ghoulish_Entity wrote

F4DED wrote Well you voted for him 1234((

Is that a logical argument? Please refer to post #19. We'll be here if you have something valuable to contribute.

Yes it is, no thanks too many pointless posts to scroll through. Happy New Year :coffee:

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote Here is a simple fact for all you simple minded liberals out there. Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years.

88k deaths from drinking, or 11k from guns. Sounds like alcohol is at least 8 times more of a problem than guns. That only goes to 2010, 5 years later that number is probably a lot higher...

People don't choose to be murdered by someone with a gun. People choose to drink alcohol.
Alcohol and guns are not analogous.

My buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver either, but it happened.

Let's look at mass murders. You know how a teacher can stop a mass shooting? Shoot the shooter with their own gun.

Drunk driving is illegal, and considering that you can't put a restriction like that on the use of guns, the second most analogous thing would be to increase the background checks provided before guns can be bought and to make sure that whenever guns are bought and sold it is done with the proper oversights - like not being allowed to buy a gun off a family member.

Fortunately for this conversation, I don't think that background checks are the best way to solve the issue of gun crime, so I won't defend them as rigorously as I would any other position of importance I hold. I don't think that they can do anything but help, but they are still quite an insignificant change compared to other things which could be done but aren't being discussed in the same context - see my earlier post on this topic.

Maybe it is a logical idea to have teachers armed in the context of deterring a mass shooter, or at least combating them, but you have to apply that logic to a full school year in every school in the country, most of which will never see a mass shooting.
Let's say, for the sake of ease, that it is put into law that all classrooms must have a gun, securely hidden away from the eyes of students, but close enough for a teacher to access easily - and that the teacher must be trained in the use of fire arms before being allowed to teach - in case a mass shooter enters the building.

Let's ignore the issues of teachers rejecting this due to religious, political, or other reasons, and say that they are simply forced into abiding because of job security, peer pressure, pressure from parents, or other reasons, and go with it any way.

Now, the students in these classrooms must sit for 180 days, 6.7 hours per day, knowing that their teacher has access to a weapon which could destroy their ignorant little brains, and they must assume at all times that their teacher is of stable mind, or else said teacher might feel inclined to access the gun and start pumping round after round into Jimmy's asthmatic little chest because he won't stop laughing at the answer '69.'

What kind of environment does this create in a school? It would create fear and tension in every single classroom.
A place where children should go to feel safe and learn about the world.

The argument could be made that the teachers would have to undergo regular psychological tests, but like the opponents of gun reform enjoy saying, they're not always right.

So, in addition to my points about mental health education reform in my earlier post, in regards to schools specifically, they should have an appropriate amount of armed security guards at every school, dependent upon the size of the school, and school facilities should be upgraded to deal with a shooter without putting a gun in the hand of every teacher and turning the school into something from an 80's action movie.

Drunk driving is illegal, as is murdering someone with a firearm. Your point was? You absolutely can put restrictions on drunk driving. They actually have the breath test things on cars that you have to pass before it will unlock for you.

That was my point, guns and drunk driving aren't analogous because you can't have a restriction which stops people from using a gun whilst intoxicated.
Your point about a breath test on cars furthers proves that point, unless you want a breath test put on guns before the firing mechanism unlocks?
But it is a moot point anyway considering most mass shooters aren't drunk when they commit their shooting.

Your analogy would only be correct if you compared intentional car homicides to intentional gun homicides. Something tells me the numbers would be much different, and not in your favor.

"the second most analogous thing would be to increase the background checks provided before guns can be bought and to make sure that whenever guns are bought and sold it is done with the proper oversights - like not being allowed to buy a gun off a family member." You act like I can walk into a store and buy a firearm without a background check.

No, I don't. I specifically used the word, 'increase.'

Yes, you can buy a gun off your neighbor, but a gun is registered like your car. You and your neighbor will have to go to a gun shop, or some place certified to transfer ownership of the firearm, at which point they will run a background check.

In the United States, the law does not require that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Gun Regulation -> Firearm Registration -> Civilian Gun Registration

Background checks are absolutely significant. Is it a fool proof way? No. Are there better ways to make sure people with ill intent don't get guns? Perhaps.

We are in complete agreement. I said that they are insignificant in relation to other things, not that they are insignificant on their own.

It is a logical idea for teachers be to armed IF they have been properly trained. I personally would rather a teacher open carry and be trained in personal defense with a once a month meeting to touch up their skills, but that's just me. The fact is, most kids, no matter how screwed up in the head, won't shoot another classmate for being an idiot. He might beat the living crap out of him, but not shoot him.

I did say in my outline of this fictional law that the gun would be easily accessible to the teacher, but not accessible to the students.

You're worried about a teacher going psycho? Look at all the cops patrolling your streets, you have to worry about them. Look at all the people conceal carrying, you can't, but still there is a lot of them. 1 in 20 adults have a conceal carry permit, so at any time 1 in 20 people could have a pistol on them.

If I were to respond to this point, I would be entering a realm of ideas on which I am undecided, like issues of police armament and the entire concept of concealed carry.
For the sake of continuity, I would say that both the police should not carry guns, and that the concealed carry law should be repealed.
Because I don't want to shoehorn this conversation off the topic of schools, I will only say that I would take guns off police officers once my other suggestions have been put in place and have had years to make a noticeable effect. But, my stance on that might change dependent on the factors at that time, so I'm not going to commit to that view outright and completely.

Tell you what, this is 2016, most kids have a computer. Why don't we stop schooling in a brick and mortar school building, and just do it online? Here's a fact for you, I was in a traditional school until halfway through 10th grade. Second semester of 10th grade I went to an online school, as of right now I'm graduating a semester early, and my GPA has increased almost a full point. This school didn't cost me a dime, they shipped me my books, a computer, and printer. All I needed was internet access. My education has increased, and one could argue I am not in harms way by not being in a school building.

Children get more from school than book knowledge. Many learn how to socialize and function as members of society at school.
School also offers a method of teaching which is adaptable, sitting at a computer is not an adaptable method of teaching, and not all students learn in that way.
I also suppose we would be throwing art, music, physical education and science out of the window?
You need special equipment for all of those subjects, and an on-hand teacher to teach those subjects.

But this really isn't the subject we are discussing, and I'm not sure why you suggested it.

I think you need to go back and read / understand what I wrote. For what ever reason you are thinking I meant that guns AND alcohol is the problem. I simply stated that alcohol is a much bigger issue than guns, but in no way did I try to connect the two.

I won't address the rest as you didn't give me much to address until we get to the school issue. You do socialize during an online school, there are actual virtual classrooms where 20+ kids are in there interacting with one another and the teacher. How would you be "throwing art, music, physical education and science out of the window"? Art and music can be done online, in fact there are a lot of things where it's pen and paper learning. Physical education is there, it's cheatable, but still there. I still had to log at least an hour of physical activity each day that raised my heart rate. As I said, the school (at least the one I enrolled in) ships you everything you need.

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote Here is a simple fact for all you simple minded liberals out there. Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years.

88k deaths from drinking, or 11k from guns. Sounds like alcohol is at least 8 times more of a problem than guns. That only goes to 2010, 5 years later that number is probably a lot higher...

People don't choose to be murdered by someone with a gun. People choose to drink alcohol.
Alcohol and guns are not analogous.

My buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver either, but it happened.

Let's look at mass murders. You know how a teacher can stop a mass shooting? Shoot the shooter with their own gun.

Drunk driving is illegal, and considering that you can't put a restriction like that on the use of guns, the second most analogous thing would be to increase the background checks provided before guns can be bought and to make sure that whenever guns are bought and sold it is done with the proper oversights - like not being allowed to buy a gun off a family member.

Fortunately for this conversation, I don't think that background checks are the best way to solve the issue of gun crime, so I won't defend them as rigorously as I would any other position of importance I hold. I don't think that they can do anything but help, but they are still quite an insignificant change compared to other things which could be done but aren't being discussed in the same context - see my earlier post on this topic.

Maybe it is a logical idea to have teachers armed in the context of deterring a mass shooter, or at least combating them, but you have to apply that logic to a full school year in every school in the country, most of which will never see a mass shooting.
Let's say, for the sake of ease, that it is put into law that all classrooms must have a gun, securely hidden away from the eyes of students, but close enough for a teacher to access easily - and that the teacher must be trained in the use of fire arms before being allowed to teach - in case a mass shooter enters the building.

Let's ignore the issues of teachers rejecting this due to religious, political, or other reasons, and say that they are simply forced into abiding because of job security, peer pressure, pressure from parents, or other reasons, and go with it any way.

Now, the students in these classrooms must sit for 180 days, 6.7 hours per day, knowing that their teacher has access to a weapon which could destroy their ignorant little brains, and they must assume at all times that their teacher is of stable mind, or else said teacher might feel inclined to access the gun and start pumping round after round into Jimmy's asthmatic little chest because he won't stop laughing at the answer '69.'

What kind of environment does this create in a school? It would create fear and tension in every single classroom.
A place where children should go to feel safe and learn about the world.

The argument could be made that the teachers would have to undergo regular psychological tests, but like the opponents of gun reform enjoy saying, they're not always right.

So, in addition to my points about mental health education reform in my earlier post, in regards to schools specifically, they should have an appropriate amount of armed security guards at every school, dependent upon the size of the school, and school facilities should be upgraded to deal with a shooter without putting a gun in the hand of every teacher and turning the school into something from an 80's action movie.

Drunk driving is illegal, as is murdering someone with a firearm. Your point was? You absolutely can put restrictions on drunk driving. They actually have the breath test things on cars that you have to pass before it will unlock for you.

That was my point, guns and drunk driving aren't analogous because you can't have a restriction which stops people from using a gun whilst intoxicated.
Your point about a breath test on cars furthers proves that point, unless you want a breath test put on guns before the firing mechanism unlocks?
But it is a moot point anyway considering most mass shooters aren't drunk when they commit their shooting.

Your analogy would only be correct if you compared intentional car homicides to intentional gun homicides. Something tells me the numbers would be much different, and not in your favor.

"the second most analogous thing would be to increase the background checks provided before guns can be bought and to make sure that whenever guns are bought and sold it is done with the proper oversights - like not being allowed to buy a gun off a family member." You act like I can walk into a store and buy a firearm without a background check.

No, I don't. I specifically used the word, 'increase.'

Yes, you can buy a gun off your neighbor, but a gun is registered like your car. You and your neighbor will have to go to a gun shop, or some place certified to transfer ownership of the firearm, at which point they will run a background check.

In the United States, the law does not require that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Gun Regulation -> Firearm Registration -> Civilian Gun Registration

Background checks are absolutely significant. Is it a fool proof way? No. Are there better ways to make sure people with ill intent don't get guns? Perhaps.

We are in complete agreement. I said that they are insignificant in relation to other things, not that they are insignificant on their own.

It is a logical idea for teachers be to armed IF they have been properly trained. I personally would rather a teacher open carry and be trained in personal defense with a once a month meeting to touch up their skills, but that's just me. The fact is, most kids, no matter how screwed up in the head, won't shoot another classmate for being an idiot. He might beat the living crap out of him, but not shoot him.

I did say in my outline of this fictional law that the gun would be easily accessible to the teacher, but not accessible to the students.

You're worried about a teacher going psycho? Look at all the cops patrolling your streets, you have to worry about them. Look at all the people conceal carrying, you can't, but still there is a lot of them. 1 in 20 adults have a conceal carry permit, so at any time 1 in 20 people could have a pistol on them.

If I were to respond to this point, I would be entering a realm of ideas on which I am undecided, like issues of police armament and the entire concept of concealed carry.
For the sake of continuity, I would say that both the police should not carry guns, and that the concealed carry law should be repealed.
Because I don't want to shoehorn this conversation off the topic of schools, I will only say that I would take guns off police officers once my other suggestions have been put in place and have had years to make a noticeable effect. But, my stance on that might change dependent on the factors at that time, so I'm not going to commit to that view outright and completely.

Tell you what, this is 2016, most kids have a computer. Why don't we stop schooling in a brick and mortar school building, and just do it online? Here's a fact for you, I was in a traditional school until halfway through 10th grade. Second semester of 10th grade I went to an online school, as of right now I'm graduating a semester early, and my GPA has increased almost a full point. This school didn't cost me a dime, they shipped me my books, a computer, and printer. All I needed was internet access. My education has increased, and one could argue I am not in harms way by not being in a school building.

Children get more from school than book knowledge. Many learn how to socialize and function as members of society at school.
School also offers a method of teaching which is adaptable, sitting at a computer is not an adaptable method of teaching, and not all students learn in that way.
I also suppose we would be throwing art, music, physical education and science out of the window?
You need special equipment for all of those subjects, and an on-hand teacher to teach those subjects.

But this really isn't the subject we are discussing, and I'm not sure why you suggested it.

I think you need to go back and read / understand what I wrote. For what ever reason you are thinking I meant that guns AND alcohol is the problem. I simply stated that alcohol is a much bigger issue than guns, but in no way did I try to connect the two.

I won't address the rest as you didn't give me much to address until we get to the school issue. You do socialize during an online school, there are actual virtual classrooms where 20+ kids are in there interacting with one another and the teacher. How would you be "throwing art, music, physical education and science out of the window"? Art and music can be done online, in fact there are a lot of things where it's pen and paper learning. Physical education is there, it's cheatable, but still there. I still had to log at least an hour of physical activity each day that raised my heart rate. As I said, the school (at least the one I enrolled in) ships you everything you need.

Here is a simple fact for all you simple minded liberals out there. Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years.

88k deaths from drinking, or 11k from guns. Sounds like alcohol is at least 8 times more of a problem than guns. That only goes to 2010, 5 years later that number is probably a lot higher...

You then went on to say...

My buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver either, but it happened.

You were making an analogy. Analogies, as a rule of logic, have to be similar. My point was that comparing gun deaths to alcohol related deaths is illogical because they are not similar methods of death. One is by choice, the other is not.

Your second post clarified that you also meant drunk drivers - which you didn't specify in your first post.
You changed the analogy from only being about alcohol consumption to the effects of alcohol consumption on driving and the inability to choose whether or not you are killed by a drunk driver.

I responded to that by saying that they are still not analogous because drunk drivers do not intentionally kill their victims, whilst most gun murderers do.

If I had misunderstood your first post it is entirely your fault that we continued down that line of argumentation because you didn't correct my misunderstanding after the first post. That either leads to the conclusion that you didn't realize that I had misunderstood, or didn't want to say anything else because you knew my first reply was correct, so you moved the goal posts instead.

Basically, you carried on responding to my misunderstanding. Why do this, and not just correct me to start with?

But let's say that you were just comparing the amount of deaths and were saying that alcohol is an issue which needs to be focused on more.

You are trying to divert attention away from the issue by pointing to another. People could be focusing on alcohol reform and you could say 'But look at all of the deaths from suicide in the US.' Then when people are focusing on that you could turn around and say 'But look at all of the deaths from cancer in the US.' Then when people are focusing on that you could turn around and say 'But look at all of the deaths from hunger in the world.'


With the, 'There's always a bigger issue' mindset, nothing would be solved.

I accept what you are saying about schools, and maybe it would be better if the system was done online, rather than in buildings. I simply haven't given it enough thought before to talk about it at length.

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote Here is a simple fact for all you simple minded liberals out there. Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years.

88k deaths from drinking, or 11k from guns. Sounds like alcohol is at least 8 times more of a problem than guns. That only goes to 2010, 5 years later that number is probably a lot higher...

People don't choose to be murdered by someone with a gun. People choose to drink alcohol.
Alcohol and guns are not analogous.

My buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver either, but it happened.

Let's look at mass murders. You know how a teacher can stop a mass shooting? Shoot the shooter with their own gun.

Drunk driving is illegal, and considering that you can't put a restriction like that on the use of guns, the second most analogous thing would be to increase the background checks provided before guns can be bought and to make sure that whenever guns are bought and sold it is done with the proper oversights - like not being allowed to buy a gun off a family member.

Fortunately for this conversation, I don't think that background checks are the best way to solve the issue of gun crime, so I won't defend them as rigorously as I would any other position of importance I hold. I don't think that they can do anything but help, but they are still quite an insignificant change compared to other things which could be done but aren't being discussed in the same context - see my earlier post on this topic.

Maybe it is a logical idea to have teachers armed in the context of deterring a mass shooter, or at least combating them, but you have to apply that logic to a full school year in every school in the country, most of which will never see a mass shooting.
Let's say, for the sake of ease, that it is put into law that all classrooms must have a gun, securely hidden away from the eyes of students, but close enough for a teacher to access easily - and that the teacher must be trained in the use of fire arms before being allowed to teach - in case a mass shooter enters the building.

Let's ignore the issues of teachers rejecting this due to religious, political, or other reasons, and say that they are simply forced into abiding because of job security, peer pressure, pressure from parents, or other reasons, and go with it any way.

Now, the students in these classrooms must sit for 180 days, 6.7 hours per day, knowing that their teacher has access to a weapon which could destroy their ignorant little brains, and they must assume at all times that their teacher is of stable mind, or else said teacher might feel inclined to access the gun and start pumping round after round into Jimmy's asthmatic little chest because he won't stop laughing at the answer '69.'

What kind of environment does this create in a school? It would create fear and tension in every single classroom.
A place where children should go to feel safe and learn about the world.

The argument could be made that the teachers would have to undergo regular psychological tests, but like the opponents of gun reform enjoy saying, they're not always right.

So, in addition to my points about mental health education reform in my earlier post, in regards to schools specifically, they should have an appropriate amount of armed security guards at every school, dependent upon the size of the school, and school facilities should be upgraded to deal with a shooter without putting a gun in the hand of every teacher and turning the school into something from an 80's action movie.

Drunk driving is illegal, as is murdering someone with a firearm. Your point was? You absolutely can put restrictions on drunk driving. They actually have the breath test things on cars that you have to pass before it will unlock for you.

That was my point, guns and drunk driving aren't analogous because you can't have a restriction which stops people from using a gun whilst intoxicated.
Your point about a breath test on cars furthers proves that point, unless you want a breath test put on guns before the firing mechanism unlocks?
But it is a moot point anyway considering most mass shooters aren't drunk when they commit their shooting.

Your analogy would only be correct if you compared intentional car homicides to intentional gun homicides. Something tells me the numbers would be much different, and not in your favor.

"the second most analogous thing would be to increase the background checks provided before guns can be bought and to make sure that whenever guns are bought and sold it is done with the proper oversights - like not being allowed to buy a gun off a family member." You act like I can walk into a store and buy a firearm without a background check.

No, I don't. I specifically used the word, 'increase.'

Yes, you can buy a gun off your neighbor, but a gun is registered like your car. You and your neighbor will have to go to a gun shop, or some place certified to transfer ownership of the firearm, at which point they will run a background check.

In the United States, the law does not require that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Gun Regulation -> Firearm Registration -> Civilian Gun Registration

Background checks are absolutely significant. Is it a fool proof way? No. Are there better ways to make sure people with ill intent don't get guns? Perhaps.

We are in complete agreement. I said that they are insignificant in relation to other things, not that they are insignificant on their own.

It is a logical idea for teachers be to armed IF they have been properly trained. I personally would rather a teacher open carry and be trained in personal defense with a once a month meeting to touch up their skills, but that's just me. The fact is, most kids, no matter how screwed up in the head, won't shoot another classmate for being an idiot. He might beat the living crap out of him, but not shoot him.

I did say in my outline of this fictional law that the gun would be easily accessible to the teacher, but not accessible to the students.

You're worried about a teacher going psycho? Look at all the cops patrolling your streets, you have to worry about them. Look at all the people conceal carrying, you can't, but still there is a lot of them. 1 in 20 adults have a conceal carry permit, so at any time 1 in 20 people could have a pistol on them.

If I were to respond to this point, I would be entering a realm of ideas on which I am undecided, like issues of police armament and the entire concept of concealed carry.
For the sake of continuity, I would say that both the police should not carry guns, and that the concealed carry law should be repealed.
Because I don't want to shoehorn this conversation off the topic of schools, I will only say that I would take guns off police officers once my other suggestions have been put in place and have had years to make a noticeable effect. But, my stance on that might change dependent on the factors at that time, so I'm not going to commit to that view outright and completely.

Tell you what, this is 2016, most kids have a computer. Why don't we stop schooling in a brick and mortar school building, and just do it online? Here's a fact for you, I was in a traditional school until halfway through 10th grade. Second semester of 10th grade I went to an online school, as of right now I'm graduating a semester early, and my GPA has increased almost a full point. This school didn't cost me a dime, they shipped me my books, a computer, and printer. All I needed was internet access. My education has increased, and one could argue I am not in harms way by not being in a school building.

Children get more from school than book knowledge. Many learn how to socialize and function as members of society at school.
School also offers a method of teaching which is adaptable, sitting at a computer is not an adaptable method of teaching, and not all students learn in that way.
I also suppose we would be throwing art, music, physical education and science out of the window?
You need special equipment for all of those subjects, and an on-hand teacher to teach those subjects.

But this really isn't the subject we are discussing, and I'm not sure why you suggested it.

I think you need to go back and read / understand what I wrote. For what ever reason you are thinking I meant that guns AND alcohol is the problem. I simply stated that alcohol is a much bigger issue than guns, but in no way did I try to connect the two.

I won't address the rest as you didn't give me much to address until we get to the school issue. You do socialize during an online school, there are actual virtual classrooms where 20+ kids are in there interacting with one another and the teacher. How would you be "throwing art, music, physical education and science out of the window"? Art and music can be done online, in fact there are a lot of things where it's pen and paper learning. Physical education is there, it's cheatable, but still there. I still had to log at least an hour of physical activity each day that raised my heart rate. As I said, the school (at least the one I enrolled in) ships you everything you need.

Here is a simple fact for all you simple minded liberals out there. Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years.

88k deaths from drinking, or 11k from guns. Sounds like alcohol is at least 8 times more of a problem than guns. That only goes to 2010, 5 years later that number is probably a lot higher...

You then went on to say...

My buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver either, but it happened.

You were making an analogy. Analogies, as a rule of logic, have to be similar. My point was that comparing gun deaths to alcohol related deaths is illogical because they are not similar methods of death. One is by choice, the other is not.

Your second post clarified that you also meant drunk drivers - which you didn't specify in your first post.
You changed the analogy from only being about alcohol consumption to the effects of alcohol consumption on driving and the inability to choose whether or not you are killed by a drunk driver.

I responded to that by saying that they are still not analogous because drunk drivers do not intentionally kill their victims, whilst most gun murderers do.

If I had misunderstood your first post it is entirely your fault that we continued down that line of argumentation because you didn't correct my misunderstanding after the first post. That either leads to the conclusion that you didn't realize that I had misunderstood, or didn't want to say anything else because you knew my first reply was correct, so you moved the goal posts instead.

Basically, you carried on responding to my misunderstanding. Why do this, and not just correct me to start with?

But let's say that you were just comparing the amount of deaths and were saying that alcohol is an issue which needs to be focused on more.

You are trying to divert attention away from the issue by pointing to another. People could be focusing on alcohol reform and you could say 'But look at all of the deaths from suicide in the US.' Then when people are focusing on that you could turn around and say 'But look at all of the deaths from cancer in the US.' Then when people are focusing on that you could turn around and say 'But look at all of the deaths from hunger in the world.'


With the, 'There's always a bigger issue' mindset, nothing would be solved.

I accept what you are saying about schools, and maybe it would be better if the system was done online, rather than in buildings. I simply haven't given it enough thought before to talk about it at length.

What? Again, it's you not understanding what I wrote. They don't HAVE to be related, my sole point was that alcohol is a bigger problem than guns, so why don't we focus on that? "One is by choice, the other is not". Where did you get that idea from. getting drunk is a choice, just like picking up a gun and shooting up the school is a choice. Getting shot in the classroom and getting hit by a drunk driver is not a choice. Sure, the guy who got drunk didn't mean to kill a guy, but the fact is, it happened. Weather or not you meant to kill a guy does not matter, at the end of the day there is still a guy dead because you made a bad decision.

I made a broad statement about alcohol, then you came back with people didn't choose to be shot, and I came back with my buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver. Does drinking alcohol make you drunk? It can, just like a gun CAN make you a murderer.

What I'm saying is only 11k people die each year from guns, yet 8x that much dies from a different issue, and instead of solving big issues, we are focused on one issue that kills suck a little amount of people.

002 wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote Here is a simple fact for all you simple minded liberals out there. Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years.

88k deaths from drinking, or 11k from guns. Sounds like alcohol is at least 8 times more of a problem than guns. That only goes to 2010, 5 years later that number is probably a lot higher...

People don't choose to be murdered by someone with a gun. People choose to drink alcohol.
Alcohol and guns are not analogous.

My buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver either, but it happened.

Let's look at mass murders. You know how a teacher can stop a mass shooting? Shoot the shooter with their own gun.

Drunk driving is illegal, and considering that you can't put a restriction like that on the use of guns, the second most analogous thing would be to increase the background checks provided before guns can be bought and to make sure that whenever guns are bought and sold it is done with the proper oversights - like not being allowed to buy a gun off a family member.

Fortunately for this conversation, I don't think that background checks are the best way to solve the issue of gun crime, so I won't defend them as rigorously as I would any other position of importance I hold. I don't think that they can do anything but help, but they are still quite an insignificant change compared to other things which could be done but aren't being discussed in the same context - see my earlier post on this topic.

Maybe it is a logical idea to have teachers armed in the context of deterring a mass shooter, or at least combating them, but you have to apply that logic to a full school year in every school in the country, most of which will never see a mass shooting.
Let's say, for the sake of ease, that it is put into law that all classrooms must have a gun, securely hidden away from the eyes of students, but close enough for a teacher to access easily - and that the teacher must be trained in the use of fire arms before being allowed to teach - in case a mass shooter enters the building.

Let's ignore the issues of teachers rejecting this due to religious, political, or other reasons, and say that they are simply forced into abiding because of job security, peer pressure, pressure from parents, or other reasons, and go with it any way.

Now, the students in these classrooms must sit for 180 days, 6.7 hours per day, knowing that their teacher has access to a weapon which could destroy their ignorant little brains, and they must assume at all times that their teacher is of stable mind, or else said teacher might feel inclined to access the gun and start pumping round after round into Jimmy's asthmatic little chest because he won't stop laughing at the answer '69.'

What kind of environment does this create in a school? It would create fear and tension in every single classroom.
A place where children should go to feel safe and learn about the world.

The argument could be made that the teachers would have to undergo regular psychological tests, but like the opponents of gun reform enjoy saying, they're not always right.

So, in addition to my points about mental health education reform in my earlier post, in regards to schools specifically, they should have an appropriate amount of armed security guards at every school, dependent upon the size of the school, and school facilities should be upgraded to deal with a shooter without putting a gun in the hand of every teacher and turning the school into something from an 80's action movie.

Drunk driving is illegal, as is murdering someone with a firearm. Your point was? You absolutely can put restrictions on drunk driving. They actually have the breath test things on cars that you have to pass before it will unlock for you.

That was my point, guns and drunk driving aren't analogous because you can't have a restriction which stops people from using a gun whilst intoxicated.
Your point about a breath test on cars furthers proves that point, unless you want a breath test put on guns before the firing mechanism unlocks?
But it is a moot point anyway considering most mass shooters aren't drunk when they commit their shooting.

Your analogy would only be correct if you compared intentional car homicides to intentional gun homicides. Something tells me the numbers would be much different, and not in your favor.

"the second most analogous thing would be to increase the background checks provided before guns can be bought and to make sure that whenever guns are bought and sold it is done with the proper oversights - like not being allowed to buy a gun off a family member." You act like I can walk into a store and buy a firearm without a background check.

No, I don't. I specifically used the word, 'increase.'

Yes, you can buy a gun off your neighbor, but a gun is registered like your car. You and your neighbor will have to go to a gun shop, or some place certified to transfer ownership of the firearm, at which point they will run a background check.

In the United States, the law does not require that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Gun Regulation -> Firearm Registration -> Civilian Gun Registration

Background checks are absolutely significant. Is it a fool proof way? No. Are there better ways to make sure people with ill intent don't get guns? Perhaps.

We are in complete agreement. I said that they are insignificant in relation to other things, not that they are insignificant on their own.

It is a logical idea for teachers be to armed IF they have been properly trained. I personally would rather a teacher open carry and be trained in personal defense with a once a month meeting to touch up their skills, but that's just me. The fact is, most kids, no matter how screwed up in the head, won't shoot another classmate for being an idiot. He might beat the living crap out of him, but not shoot him.

I did say in my outline of this fictional law that the gun would be easily accessible to the teacher, but not accessible to the students.

You're worried about a teacher going psycho? Look at all the cops patrolling your streets, you have to worry about them. Look at all the people conceal carrying, you can't, but still there is a lot of them. 1 in 20 adults have a conceal carry permit, so at any time 1 in 20 people could have a pistol on them.

If I were to respond to this point, I would be entering a realm of ideas on which I am undecided, like issues of police armament and the entire concept of concealed carry.
For the sake of continuity, I would say that both the police should not carry guns, and that the concealed carry law should be repealed.
Because I don't want to shoehorn this conversation off the topic of schools, I will only say that I would take guns off police officers once my other suggestions have been put in place and have had years to make a noticeable effect. But, my stance on that might change dependent on the factors at that time, so I'm not going to commit to that view outright and completely.

Tell you what, this is 2016, most kids have a computer. Why don't we stop schooling in a brick and mortar school building, and just do it online? Here's a fact for you, I was in a traditional school until halfway through 10th grade. Second semester of 10th grade I went to an online school, as of right now I'm graduating a semester early, and my GPA has increased almost a full point. This school didn't cost me a dime, they shipped me my books, a computer, and printer. All I needed was internet access. My education has increased, and one could argue I am not in harms way by not being in a school building.

Children get more from school than book knowledge. Many learn how to socialize and function as members of society at school.
School also offers a method of teaching which is adaptable, sitting at a computer is not an adaptable method of teaching, and not all students learn in that way.
I also suppose we would be throwing art, music, physical education and science out of the window?
You need special equipment for all of those subjects, and an on-hand teacher to teach those subjects.

But this really isn't the subject we are discussing, and I'm not sure why you suggested it.

I think you need to go back and read / understand what I wrote. For what ever reason you are thinking I meant that guns AND alcohol is the problem. I simply stated that alcohol is a much bigger issue than guns, but in no way did I try to connect the two.

I won't address the rest as you didn't give me much to address until we get to the school issue. You do socialize during an online school, there are actual virtual classrooms where 20+ kids are in there interacting with one another and the teacher. How would you be "throwing art, music, physical education and science out of the window"? Art and music can be done online, in fact there are a lot of things where it's pen and paper learning. Physical education is there, it's cheatable, but still there. I still had to log at least an hour of physical activity each day that raised my heart rate. As I said, the school (at least the one I enrolled in) ships you everything you need.

Here is a simple fact for all you simple minded liberals out there. Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years.

88k deaths from drinking, or 11k from guns. Sounds like alcohol is at least 8 times more of a problem than guns. That only goes to 2010, 5 years later that number is probably a lot higher...

You then went on to say...

My buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver either, but it happened.

You were making an analogy. Analogies, as a rule of logic, have to be similar. My point was that comparing gun deaths to alcohol related deaths is illogical because they are not similar methods of death. One is by choice, the other is not.

Your second post clarified that you also meant drunk drivers - which you didn't specify in your first post.
You changed the analogy from only being about alcohol consumption to the effects of alcohol consumption on driving and the inability to choose whether or not you are killed by a drunk driver.

I responded to that by saying that they are still not analogous because drunk drivers do not intentionally kill their victims, whilst most gun murderers do.

If I had misunderstood your first post it is entirely your fault that we continued down that line of argumentation because you didn't correct my misunderstanding after the first post. That either leads to the conclusion that you didn't realize that I had misunderstood, or didn't want to say anything else because you knew my first reply was correct, so you moved the goal posts instead.

Basically, you carried on responding to my misunderstanding. Why do this, and not just correct me to start with?

But let's say that you were just comparing the amount of deaths and were saying that alcohol is an issue which needs to be focused on more.

You are trying to divert attention away from the issue by pointing to another. People could be focusing on alcohol reform and you could say 'But look at all of the deaths from suicide in the US.' Then when people are focusing on that you could turn around and say 'But look at all of the deaths from cancer in the US.' Then when people are focusing on that you could turn around and say 'But look at all of the deaths from hunger in the world.'


With the, 'There's always a bigger issue' mindset, nothing would be solved.

I accept what you are saying about schools, and maybe it would be better if the system was done online, rather than in buildings. I simply haven't given it enough thought before to talk about it at length.

What? Again, it's you not understanding what I wrote. They don't HAVE to be related, my sole point was that alcohol is a bigger problem than guns, so why don't we focus on that? "One is by choice, the other is not". Where did you get that idea from. getting drunk is a choice, just like picking up a gun and shooting up the school is a choice. Getting shot in the classroom and getting hit by a drunk driver is not a choice. Sure, the guy who got drunk didn't mean to kill a guy, but the fact is, it happened. Weather or not you meant to kill a guy does not matter, at the end of the day there is still a guy dead because you made a bad decision.

I made a broad statement about alcohol, then you came back with people didn't choose to be shot, and I came back with my buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver. Does drinking alcohol make you drunk? It can, just like a gun CAN make you a murderer.

What I'm saying is only 11k people die each year from guns, yet 8x that much dies from a different issue, and instead of solving big issues, we are focused on one issue that kills suck a little amount of people.

It is still an issue nonetheless, and it just so happens to be the issue that this topic is about.
This is like going onto a topic debating how to better treat the common cold and telling them that they should be focusing on cancer.
The cancer debate is happening, just like the alcohol debate is happening, it's just not happening on this particular topic.

Sure, the guy who got drunk didn't mean to kill a guy, but the fact is, it happened. Weather or not you meant to kill a guy does not matter, at the end of the day there is still a guy dead because you made a bad decision.

So now you don't care about the numbers?

instead of solving big issues, we are focused on one issue that kills such a little amount of people.

I said this in an earlier post:
Your analogy would only be correct if you compared intentional car homicides to intentional gun homicides. Something tells me the numbers would be much different, and not in your favor.

The numbers aren't in your favor.
30,000 people are killed by gun violence every year in the US.
10,000 are killed by drunk drivers.

Even if you don't correct your analogy and take it as drunk drivers instead of intentional car homicides, the numbers are not in your favor.

So should we focus on drunk drivers or gun reform? Gun deaths occur more often than drunk driving deaths, according to your own logic we should be focusing on the gun deaths.

The term 'excessive drinking' is far too vague. That could mean getting drunk once a week, or it could mean drinking one more unit than your doctor recommends every other night. It does not automatically mean getting drunk.

That is why I responded to your first post in the way that I did, you didn't specify that you meant people getting drunk, or your source didn't at least.
I found a source which refines your statistics and tightens the words being used into a much more straightforward message:

Nearly 88,0009 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women10) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making it the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
'Alcohol related causes' does not equal 'drunken behavior.' The main issues with alcohol are medical, like cancers, and organ failures, not drunken behavior.

But, like I've already said, those 88,000 deaths are a different issue for a different topic, one which you and I probably wouldn't disagree on.

So, just to be clear.
I understand that your first post was simply a comparison.
I understand that I misunderstood your first post, and thought that you were making an analogy with gun deaths.
But you have now started to analogize drunken deaths with gun related deaths in your more recent posts which is what I am now responding to.

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote Here is a simple fact for all you simple minded liberals out there. Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years.

88k deaths from drinking, or 11k from guns. Sounds like alcohol is at least 8 times more of a problem than guns. That only goes to 2010, 5 years later that number is probably a lot higher...

People don't choose to be murdered by someone with a gun. People choose to drink alcohol.
Alcohol and guns are not analogous.

My buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver either, but it happened.

Let's look at mass murders. You know how a teacher can stop a mass shooting? Shoot the shooter with their own gun.

Drunk driving is illegal, and considering that you can't put a restriction like that on the use of guns, the second most analogous thing would be to increase the background checks provided before guns can be bought and to make sure that whenever guns are bought and sold it is done with the proper oversights - like not being allowed to buy a gun off a family member.

Fortunately for this conversation, I don't think that background checks are the best way to solve the issue of gun crime, so I won't defend them as rigorously as I would any other position of importance I hold. I don't think that they can do anything but help, but they are still quite an insignificant change compared to other things which could be done but aren't being discussed in the same context - see my earlier post on this topic.

Maybe it is a logical idea to have teachers armed in the context of deterring a mass shooter, or at least combating them, but you have to apply that logic to a full school year in every school in the country, most of which will never see a mass shooting.
Let's say, for the sake of ease, that it is put into law that all classrooms must have a gun, securely hidden away from the eyes of students, but close enough for a teacher to access easily - and that the teacher must be trained in the use of fire arms before being allowed to teach - in case a mass shooter enters the building.

Let's ignore the issues of teachers rejecting this due to religious, political, or other reasons, and say that they are simply forced into abiding because of job security, peer pressure, pressure from parents, or other reasons, and go with it any way.

Now, the students in these classrooms must sit for 180 days, 6.7 hours per day, knowing that their teacher has access to a weapon which could destroy their ignorant little brains, and they must assume at all times that their teacher is of stable mind, or else said teacher might feel inclined to access the gun and start pumping round after round into Jimmy's asthmatic little chest because he won't stop laughing at the answer '69.'

What kind of environment does this create in a school? It would create fear and tension in every single classroom.
A place where children should go to feel safe and learn about the world.

The argument could be made that the teachers would have to undergo regular psychological tests, but like the opponents of gun reform enjoy saying, they're not always right.

So, in addition to my points about mental health education reform in my earlier post, in regards to schools specifically, they should have an appropriate amount of armed security guards at every school, dependent upon the size of the school, and school facilities should be upgraded to deal with a shooter without putting a gun in the hand of every teacher and turning the school into something from an 80's action movie.

Drunk driving is illegal, as is murdering someone with a firearm. Your point was? You absolutely can put restrictions on drunk driving. They actually have the breath test things on cars that you have to pass before it will unlock for you.

That was my point, guns and drunk driving aren't analogous because you can't have a restriction which stops people from using a gun whilst intoxicated.
Your point about a breath test on cars furthers proves that point, unless you want a breath test put on guns before the firing mechanism unlocks?
But it is a moot point anyway considering most mass shooters aren't drunk when they commit their shooting.

Your analogy would only be correct if you compared intentional car homicides to intentional gun homicides. Something tells me the numbers would be much different, and not in your favor.

"the second most analogous thing would be to increase the background checks provided before guns can be bought and to make sure that whenever guns are bought and sold it is done with the proper oversights - like not being allowed to buy a gun off a family member." You act like I can walk into a store and buy a firearm without a background check.

No, I don't. I specifically used the word, 'increase.'

Yes, you can buy a gun off your neighbor, but a gun is registered like your car. You and your neighbor will have to go to a gun shop, or some place certified to transfer ownership of the firearm, at which point they will run a background check.

In the United States, the law does not require that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Gun Regulation -> Firearm Registration -> Civilian Gun Registration

Background checks are absolutely significant. Is it a fool proof way? No. Are there better ways to make sure people with ill intent don't get guns? Perhaps.

We are in complete agreement. I said that they are insignificant in relation to other things, not that they are insignificant on their own.

It is a logical idea for teachers be to armed IF they have been properly trained. I personally would rather a teacher open carry and be trained in personal defense with a once a month meeting to touch up their skills, but that's just me. The fact is, most kids, no matter how screwed up in the head, won't shoot another classmate for being an idiot. He might beat the living crap out of him, but not shoot him.

I did say in my outline of this fictional law that the gun would be easily accessible to the teacher, but not accessible to the students.

You're worried about a teacher going psycho? Look at all the cops patrolling your streets, you have to worry about them. Look at all the people conceal carrying, you can't, but still there is a lot of them. 1 in 20 adults have a conceal carry permit, so at any time 1 in 20 people could have a pistol on them.

If I were to respond to this point, I would be entering a realm of ideas on which I am undecided, like issues of police armament and the entire concept of concealed carry.
For the sake of continuity, I would say that both the police should not carry guns, and that the concealed carry law should be repealed.
Because I don't want to shoehorn this conversation off the topic of schools, I will only say that I would take guns off police officers once my other suggestions have been put in place and have had years to make a noticeable effect. But, my stance on that might change dependent on the factors at that time, so I'm not going to commit to that view outright and completely.

Tell you what, this is 2016, most kids have a computer. Why don't we stop schooling in a brick and mortar school building, and just do it online? Here's a fact for you, I was in a traditional school until halfway through 10th grade. Second semester of 10th grade I went to an online school, as of right now I'm graduating a semester early, and my GPA has increased almost a full point. This school didn't cost me a dime, they shipped me my books, a computer, and printer. All I needed was internet access. My education has increased, and one could argue I am not in harms way by not being in a school building.

Children get more from school than book knowledge. Many learn how to socialize and function as members of society at school.
School also offers a method of teaching which is adaptable, sitting at a computer is not an adaptable method of teaching, and not all students learn in that way.
I also suppose we would be throwing art, music, physical education and science out of the window?
You need special equipment for all of those subjects, and an on-hand teacher to teach those subjects.

But this really isn't the subject we are discussing, and I'm not sure why you suggested it.

I think you need to go back and read / understand what I wrote. For what ever reason you are thinking I meant that guns AND alcohol is the problem. I simply stated that alcohol is a much bigger issue than guns, but in no way did I try to connect the two.

I won't address the rest as you didn't give me much to address until we get to the school issue. You do socialize during an online school, there are actual virtual classrooms where 20+ kids are in there interacting with one another and the teacher. How would you be "throwing art, music, physical education and science out of the window"? Art and music can be done online, in fact there are a lot of things where it's pen and paper learning. Physical education is there, it's cheatable, but still there. I still had to log at least an hour of physical activity each day that raised my heart rate. As I said, the school (at least the one I enrolled in) ships you everything you need.

Here is a simple fact for all you simple minded liberals out there. Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years.

88k deaths from drinking, or 11k from guns. Sounds like alcohol is at least 8 times more of a problem than guns. That only goes to 2010, 5 years later that number is probably a lot higher...

You then went on to say...

My buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver either, but it happened.

You were making an analogy. Analogies, as a rule of logic, have to be similar. My point was that comparing gun deaths to alcohol related deaths is illogical because they are not similar methods of death. One is by choice, the other is not.

Your second post clarified that you also meant drunk drivers - which you didn't specify in your first post.
You changed the analogy from only being about alcohol consumption to the effects of alcohol consumption on driving and the inability to choose whether or not you are killed by a drunk driver.

I responded to that by saying that they are still not analogous because drunk drivers do not intentionally kill their victims, whilst most gun murderers do.

If I had misunderstood your first post it is entirely your fault that we continued down that line of argumentation because you didn't correct my misunderstanding after the first post. That either leads to the conclusion that you didn't realize that I had misunderstood, or didn't want to say anything else because you knew my first reply was correct, so you moved the goal posts instead.

Basically, you carried on responding to my misunderstanding. Why do this, and not just correct me to start with?

But let's say that you were just comparing the amount of deaths and were saying that alcohol is an issue which needs to be focused on more.

You are trying to divert attention away from the issue by pointing to another. People could be focusing on alcohol reform and you could say 'But look at all of the deaths from suicide in the US.' Then when people are focusing on that you could turn around and say 'But look at all of the deaths from cancer in the US.' Then when people are focusing on that you could turn around and say 'But look at all of the deaths from hunger in the world.'


With the, 'There's always a bigger issue' mindset, nothing would be solved.

I accept what you are saying about schools, and maybe it would be better if the system was done online, rather than in buildings. I simply haven't given it enough thought before to talk about it at length.

What? Again, it's you not understanding what I wrote. They don't HAVE to be related, my sole point was that alcohol is a bigger problem than guns, so why don't we focus on that? "One is by choice, the other is not". Where did you get that idea from. getting drunk is a choice, just like picking up a gun and shooting up the school is a choice. Getting shot in the classroom and getting hit by a drunk driver is not a choice. Sure, the guy who got drunk didn't mean to kill a guy, but the fact is, it happened. Weather or not you meant to kill a guy does not matter, at the end of the day there is still a guy dead because you made a bad decision.

I made a broad statement about alcohol, then you came back with people didn't choose to be shot, and I came back with my buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver. Does drinking alcohol make you drunk? It can, just like a gun CAN make you a murderer.

What I'm saying is only 11k people die each year from guns, yet 8x that much dies from a different issue, and instead of solving big issues, we are focused on one issue that kills suck a little amount of people.

It is still an issue nonetheless, and it just so happens to be the issue that this topic is about.
This is like going onto a topic debating how to better treat the common cold and telling them that they should be focusing on cancer.
The cancer debate is happening, just like the alcohol debate is happening, it's just not happening on this particular topic.

Sure, the guy who got drunk didn't mean to kill a guy, but the fact is, it happened. Weather or not you meant to kill a guy does not matter, at the end of the day there is still a guy dead because you made a bad decision.

So now you don't care about the numbers?

instead of solving big issues, we are focused on one issue that kills such a little amount of people.

I said this in an earlier post:
Your analogy would only be correct if you compared intentional car homicides to intentional gun homicides. Something tells me the numbers would be much different, and not in your favor.

The numbers aren't in your favor.
30,000 people are killed by gun violence every year in the US.
10,000 are killed by drunk drivers.

Even if you don't correct your analogy and take it as drunk drivers instead of intentional car homicides, the numbers are not in your favor.

So should we focus on drunk drivers or gun reform? Gun deaths occur more often than drunk driving deaths, according to your own logic we should be focusing on the gun deaths.

The term 'excessive drinking' is far too vague. That could mean getting drunk once a week, or it could mean drinking one more unit than your doctor recommends every other night. It does not automatically mean getting drunk.

That is why I responded to your first post in the way that I did, you didn't specify that you meant people getting drunk, or your source didn't at least.
But, like I've already said, those 88k deaths are a different issue for a different topic, one which you and I probably wouldn't disagree on.

You're taking ALL gun related deaths including suicide, homicide, etc. but only looking at drunk people that drive and kill people.

All you're doing is twisted words at this point. All I'm saying is alcohol is a much bigger problem than firearms, and is an easier issue to solve.

For the sake of conversation, let's play the numbers game. You said "30,000 people are killed by gun violence every year in the US". Ok, 318.9 million people live in the US, so that 30k people is only 0.000094% of the population. Should we really be making laws that take away guns, restrict guns, or otherwise make it harder to get guns because 0.000094% of the population died from guns?

002 wrote I see this has turned more towards gun control over spending, so I'll address that issue too. I will start by bringing up this fact yet AGAIN. There was just a little over 11k homocides with guns in 2013. All counted up, 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms. This includes suicides, accidently shooting yourself, mistaking the hunter at the bottom of the hill for a deer, etc. 1.3% is NOT enough to justify making it harder to get guns for the rest of the 98.7% of us.

As far as "felons shouldn't have guns", that's a crock of shit. You can get a felony by transporting drugs, even though you've never touched a gun in your life. I know a couple people who got busted with pot back before it was legal (I'm in WA state), and they got their rights to own a firearm taken away even though they've never owned one.

Let's add to the above statement. My brother got back from a camping trip where he took his school backpack, and we always take our guns. The next day was a school day, and he didn't take the gun out of his backpack. The teacher said he smelled like weed so they search him. No weed, but up comes a gun. You can imagine what happens on the school side so we won't get into that beings it's irrelevant. Now flash forward a couple years, him and I hear an ad on the radio about a sale on guns at Cabelas. We go down there and he at 18 years old with a history of bringing a gun to school (not sure what the legal paperwork said, but his expulsion papers said "gun" not firearm or BB gun) buys a semi auto AR-15, and walked out the door with it in less than 90 minutes. Is that right? I know my brother isn't one to shoot up a school, but if he has a record for bringing a gun to a school, should he be able to get a gun in less than 2 hours?

Did you know that most guns used in crimes are stolen? Even if you make it illegal o buy guns, people will still get them. Yes, they are pushing for safer storage, in fact a lot of places won't charge you sales tax on a gun safe (when you're looking at a safe that's 1k+, sales ax is a lot lol). What is the point in having a pistol, short barrel AR base, sawed off shotgun (yes they're illegal but a lot of people own them), etc.? Home defense. What a bunch of good my gun will do me when a robber breakers in my front door at 3 AM, and I have to get out of bed, open my safe, grab my gun, and confront him. A lot of people also carry weapons in their cars for self defense, so it's really not that hard to get one.

Let's say I want to shoot up my local high school. Hell, I don't need to buy or steal a gun, the school officer has an AR in his patrol car in plain sight, most of the students pass his car at least once going between classes. All I need to do is get ammo for it (knowing a police issue AK is 5.56, stealing a couple boxes is easy). Now I have the ammo for it, and probably a couple more mags, all I need to do is break into that car, grab the rifle, and away I go on my murder spree. If you want me to be safer with my guns, you damn well better practice what you preach.

Let's look at a couple areas, the state of Alaska (736,732 residents as of 2014), and Washington DC (658,893 residents as of 2014). In Alaska, as you can guess, A LOT of people own guns. What's the crime rate? 4,708 violent crimes annually, or 6.4 crimes per 1,000 residents. In DC, it's 8,406 violent crime annually, or 13 crimes per 1,000 residents. Alaska has almost 100k more citizens, but less than half the crime per 1,000 residents as DC. Could guns be a part in that? Who knows, maybe people just like their neighbors more out there, but I can guarantee you that if I know you have guns, I'll think twice before committing a violent crime against you.

In this wonderful state I live in (Washington), a bunch of dipshits got together and decided that we should pass this I-594 which says without a background check, I can't give you my gun. You want to see where that will get you?

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

What needs to be done? Not much considering there's only 1.3% of people dying from guns each year. I do want to know what the hell happened to the cool down period. It was a pain in the ass, but it should be mandatory. The fact is, disarming your citizens is not the way to go. If you make it harder to get guns you will see a lot more crime. The drug ridden streets patrolled by the gangs will be causing trouble knowing you probably don't have guns.

Don't listen to the propaganda bull shit, keep your guns, happiness, and safety. Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither and lose both. If you think taking away guns is a peachy idea, get the **** out of the USA, I'll help pay for your plane ticket.

Everything you just said implied that Obama is going to be going door to door and taking your guns from your gun safe. Besides the Washington thing, you're acting like the government is coming to take everybody's guns. They are just trying to, to the best of their abilities sort out who the people are that can't get guns legally.

• Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year
  
  
• Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance
  
  
• Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution
  
  
• Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
  
  
• Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
  
  
• Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
  
  
• Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
  
  
• Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
  

There is no way for the government to stop the black market. So saying "if people want guns they can go get them illegally" you can do that with anything, if you're a sound, stable american you'll have no issue getting a gun. It may take a week more but is one week really that big of a deal when it comes to saftey?

002 wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote

Nocebo wrote

002 wrote Here is a simple fact for all you simple minded liberals out there. Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years.

88k deaths from drinking, or 11k from guns. Sounds like alcohol is at least 8 times more of a problem than guns. That only goes to 2010, 5 years later that number is probably a lot higher...

People don't choose to be murdered by someone with a gun. People choose to drink alcohol.
Alcohol and guns are not analogous.

My buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver either, but it happened.

Let's look at mass murders. You know how a teacher can stop a mass shooting? Shoot the shooter with their own gun.

Drunk driving is illegal, and considering that you can't put a restriction like that on the use of guns, the second most analogous thing would be to increase the background checks provided before guns can be bought and to make sure that whenever guns are bought and sold it is done with the proper oversights - like not being allowed to buy a gun off a family member.

Fortunately for this conversation, I don't think that background checks are the best way to solve the issue of gun crime, so I won't defend them as rigorously as I would any other position of importance I hold. I don't think that they can do anything but help, but they are still quite an insignificant change compared to other things which could be done but aren't being discussed in the same context - see my earlier post on this topic.

Maybe it is a logical idea to have teachers armed in the context of deterring a mass shooter, or at least combating them, but you have to apply that logic to a full school year in every school in the country, most of which will never see a mass shooting.
Let's say, for the sake of ease, that it is put into law that all classrooms must have a gun, securely hidden away from the eyes of students, but close enough for a teacher to access easily - and that the teacher must be trained in the use of fire arms before being allowed to teach - in case a mass shooter enters the building.

Let's ignore the issues of teachers rejecting this due to religious, political, or other reasons, and say that they are simply forced into abiding because of job security, peer pressure, pressure from parents, or other reasons, and go with it any way.

Now, the students in these classrooms must sit for 180 days, 6.7 hours per day, knowing that their teacher has access to a weapon which could destroy their ignorant little brains, and they must assume at all times that their teacher is of stable mind, or else said teacher might feel inclined to access the gun and start pumping round after round into Jimmy's asthmatic little chest because he won't stop laughing at the answer '69.'

What kind of environment does this create in a school? It would create fear and tension in every single classroom.
A place where children should go to feel safe and learn about the world.

The argument could be made that the teachers would have to undergo regular psychological tests, but like the opponents of gun reform enjoy saying, they're not always right.

So, in addition to my points about mental health education reform in my earlier post, in regards to schools specifically, they should have an appropriate amount of armed security guards at every school, dependent upon the size of the school, and school facilities should be upgraded to deal with a shooter without putting a gun in the hand of every teacher and turning the school into something from an 80's action movie.

Drunk driving is illegal, as is murdering someone with a firearm. Your point was? You absolutely can put restrictions on drunk driving. They actually have the breath test things on cars that you have to pass before it will unlock for you.

That was my point, guns and drunk driving aren't analogous because you can't have a restriction which stops people from using a gun whilst intoxicated.
Your point about a breath test on cars furthers proves that point, unless you want a breath test put on guns before the firing mechanism unlocks?
But it is a moot point anyway considering most mass shooters aren't drunk when they commit their shooting.

Your analogy would only be correct if you compared intentional car homicides to intentional gun homicides. Something tells me the numbers would be much different, and not in your favor.

"the second most analogous thing would be to increase the background checks provided before guns can be bought and to make sure that whenever guns are bought and sold it is done with the proper oversights - like not being allowed to buy a gun off a family member." You act like I can walk into a store and buy a firearm without a background check.

No, I don't. I specifically used the word, 'increase.'

Yes, you can buy a gun off your neighbor, but a gun is registered like your car. You and your neighbor will have to go to a gun shop, or some place certified to transfer ownership of the firearm, at which point they will run a background check.

In the United States, the law does not require that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Gun Regulation -> Firearm Registration -> Civilian Gun Registration

Background checks are absolutely significant. Is it a fool proof way? No. Are there better ways to make sure people with ill intent don't get guns? Perhaps.

We are in complete agreement. I said that they are insignificant in relation to other things, not that they are insignificant on their own.

It is a logical idea for teachers be to armed IF they have been properly trained. I personally would rather a teacher open carry and be trained in personal defense with a once a month meeting to touch up their skills, but that's just me. The fact is, most kids, no matter how screwed up in the head, won't shoot another classmate for being an idiot. He might beat the living crap out of him, but not shoot him.

I did say in my outline of this fictional law that the gun would be easily accessible to the teacher, but not accessible to the students.

You're worried about a teacher going psycho? Look at all the cops patrolling your streets, you have to worry about them. Look at all the people conceal carrying, you can't, but still there is a lot of them. 1 in 20 adults have a conceal carry permit, so at any time 1 in 20 people could have a pistol on them.

If I were to respond to this point, I would be entering a realm of ideas on which I am undecided, like issues of police armament and the entire concept of concealed carry.
For the sake of continuity, I would say that both the police should not carry guns, and that the concealed carry law should be repealed.
Because I don't want to shoehorn this conversation off the topic of schools, I will only say that I would take guns off police officers once my other suggestions have been put in place and have had years to make a noticeable effect. But, my stance on that might change dependent on the factors at that time, so I'm not going to commit to that view outright and completely.

Tell you what, this is 2016, most kids have a computer. Why don't we stop schooling in a brick and mortar school building, and just do it online? Here's a fact for you, I was in a traditional school until halfway through 10th grade. Second semester of 10th grade I went to an online school, as of right now I'm graduating a semester early, and my GPA has increased almost a full point. This school didn't cost me a dime, they shipped me my books, a computer, and printer. All I needed was internet access. My education has increased, and one could argue I am not in harms way by not being in a school building.

Children get more from school than book knowledge. Many learn how to socialize and function as members of society at school.
School also offers a method of teaching which is adaptable, sitting at a computer is not an adaptable method of teaching, and not all students learn in that way.
I also suppose we would be throwing art, music, physical education and science out of the window?
You need special equipment for all of those subjects, and an on-hand teacher to teach those subjects.

But this really isn't the subject we are discussing, and I'm not sure why you suggested it.

I think you need to go back and read / understand what I wrote. For what ever reason you are thinking I meant that guns AND alcohol is the problem. I simply stated that alcohol is a much bigger issue than guns, but in no way did I try to connect the two.

I won't address the rest as you didn't give me much to address until we get to the school issue. You do socialize during an online school, there are actual virtual classrooms where 20+ kids are in there interacting with one another and the teacher. How would you be "throwing art, music, physical education and science out of the window"? Art and music can be done online, in fact there are a lot of things where it's pen and paper learning. Physical education is there, it's cheatable, but still there. I still had to log at least an hour of physical activity each day that raised my heart rate. As I said, the school (at least the one I enrolled in) ships you everything you need.

Here is a simple fact for all you simple minded liberals out there. Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years.

88k deaths from drinking, or 11k from guns. Sounds like alcohol is at least 8 times more of a problem than guns. That only goes to 2010, 5 years later that number is probably a lot higher...

You then went on to say...

My buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver either, but it happened.

You were making an analogy. Analogies, as a rule of logic, have to be similar. My point was that comparing gun deaths to alcohol related deaths is illogical because they are not similar methods of death. One is by choice, the other is not.

Your second post clarified that you also meant drunk drivers - which you didn't specify in your first post.
You changed the analogy from only being about alcohol consumption to the effects of alcohol consumption on driving and the inability to choose whether or not you are killed by a drunk driver.

I responded to that by saying that they are still not analogous because drunk drivers do not intentionally kill their victims, whilst most gun murderers do.

If I had misunderstood your first post it is entirely your fault that we continued down that line of argumentation because you didn't correct my misunderstanding after the first post. That either leads to the conclusion that you didn't realize that I had misunderstood, or didn't want to say anything else because you knew my first reply was correct, so you moved the goal posts instead.

Basically, you carried on responding to my misunderstanding. Why do this, and not just correct me to start with?

But let's say that you were just comparing the amount of deaths and were saying that alcohol is an issue which needs to be focused on more.

You are trying to divert attention away from the issue by pointing to another. People could be focusing on alcohol reform and you could say 'But look at all of the deaths from suicide in the US.' Then when people are focusing on that you could turn around and say 'But look at all of the deaths from cancer in the US.' Then when people are focusing on that you could turn around and say 'But look at all of the deaths from hunger in the world.'


With the, 'There's always a bigger issue' mindset, nothing would be solved.

I accept what you are saying about schools, and maybe it would be better if the system was done online, rather than in buildings. I simply haven't given it enough thought before to talk about it at length.

What? Again, it's you not understanding what I wrote. They don't HAVE to be related, my sole point was that alcohol is a bigger problem than guns, so why don't we focus on that? "One is by choice, the other is not". Where did you get that idea from. getting drunk is a choice, just like picking up a gun and shooting up the school is a choice. Getting shot in the classroom and getting hit by a drunk driver is not a choice. Sure, the guy who got drunk didn't mean to kill a guy, but the fact is, it happened. Weather or not you meant to kill a guy does not matter, at the end of the day there is still a guy dead because you made a bad decision.

I made a broad statement about alcohol, then you came back with people didn't choose to be shot, and I came back with my buddy didn't choose to be hit by a drunk driver. Does drinking alcohol make you drunk? It can, just like a gun CAN make you a murderer.

What I'm saying is only 11k people die each year from guns, yet 8x that much dies from a different issue, and instead of solving big issues, we are focused on one issue that kills suck a little amount of people.

It is still an issue nonetheless, and it just so happens to be the issue that this topic is about.
This is like going onto a topic debating how to better treat the common cold and telling them that they should be focusing on cancer.
The cancer debate is happening, just like the alcohol debate is happening, it's just not happening on this particular topic.

Sure, the guy who got drunk didn't mean to kill a guy, but the fact is, it happened. Weather or not you meant to kill a guy does not matter, at the end of the day there is still a guy dead because you made a bad decision.

So now you don't care about the numbers?

instead of solving big issues, we are focused on one issue that kills such a little amount of people.

I said this in an earlier post:
Your analogy would only be correct if you compared intentional car homicides to intentional gun homicides. Something tells me the numbers would be much different, and not in your favor.

The numbers aren't in your favor.
30,000 people are killed by gun violence every year in the US.
10,000 are killed by drunk drivers.

Even if you don't correct your analogy and take it as drunk drivers instead of intentional car homicides, the numbers are not in your favor.

So should we focus on drunk drivers or gun reform? Gun deaths occur more often than drunk driving deaths, according to your own logic we should be focusing on the gun deaths.

The term 'excessive drinking' is far too vague. That could mean getting drunk once a week, or it could mean drinking one more unit than your doctor recommends every other night. It does not automatically mean getting drunk.

That is why I responded to your first post in the way that I did, you didn't specify that you meant people getting drunk, or your source didn't at least.
But, like I've already said, those 88k deaths are a different issue for a different topic, one which you and I probably wouldn't disagree on.