Guns

[JAZZGASM]

With the President's recent executive action (and crying) on background checks for guns due to senseless deaths, there has been a lot of debate on gun control ( an ongoing debate actually).
There are roughly 16,000 homicides in this country each year. Of those, approximately 11,000 lives are taken by gun. How many of those homicides would not occur if we had better gun control is unknown, but it would probably be a good part of the 11,000 that could be saved. If life is precious, should we not do what needs to be done to save lives? Let's be honest though. The Constitution as well as the Supreme Court has held that we have a right to bear arms. That is a significant hurdle to overcome. Would my right to keep guns be worth saving 1,000+ lives each year? The answer for me is yes.

Now, to shift gears. There is another culprit in this country that kills far more people each year, that does not have constitutional protection. That is alcohol. Drunk driving ALONE is responsible for approximately 13,500 deaths each year in the US. Additionally, studies have shown that roughly HALF of all homicides are committed by intoxicated perpetrators. So add another 8,000 to that list. Even without the 29,000 alcohol induced deaths or the 18,000 that die of alcohol related liver disease, the numbers are staggering.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
https://www.jaapl.org/content/22/1/133.full.pdf

I am an avid drinker, and do so responsibly. I love a good scotch or belgium ale after a long day. I am an avid gun owner, and again, am very responsible. I know we tried prohibition in this country and it failed. In my opinion, we are way to lax with our drinking laws, especially in regards to drunk driving. Why can people even get their license back after putting lives in jeopardy? A guy I know was almost killed by a drunk driver but "luckily" just left him with mental deficiencies and the guy who hit him is back driving again.

For those of you that are so adamant about banning guns or implementing major restrictions on gun ownership along with greater punishment for violations with guns, why not have similar restrictions in regards to alcohol? Legally, it would be a much easier hurdle to jump over.

 

[Douchebag K]

With the President's recent executive action (and crying) on background checks for guns due to senseless deaths, there has been a lot of debate on gun control ( an ongoing debate actually).
There are roughly 16,000 homicides in this country each year. Of those, approximately 11,000 lives are taken by gun. How many of those homicides would not occur if we had better gun control is unknown, but it would probably be a good part of the 11,000 that could be saved. If life is precious, should we not do what needs to be done to save lives? Let's be honest though. The Constitution as well as the Supreme Court has held that we have a right to bear arms. That is a significant hurdle to overcome. Would my right to keep guns be worth saving 1,000+ lives each year? The answer for me is yes.

Now, to shift gears. There is another culprit in this country that kills far more people each year, that does not have constitutional protection. That is alcohol. Drunk driving ALONE is responsible for approximately 13,500 deaths each year in the US. Additionally, studies have shown that roughly HALF of all homicides are committed by intoxicated perpetrators. So add another 8,000 to that list. Even without the 29,000 alcohol induced deaths or the 18,000 that die of alcohol related liver disease, the numbers are staggering.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
https://www.jaapl.org/content/22/1/133.full.pdf

I am an avid drinker, and do so responsibly. I love a good scotch or belgium ale after a long day. I am an avid gun owner, and again, am very responsible. I know we tried prohibition in this country and it failed. In my opinion, we are way to lax with our drinking laws, especially in regards to drunk driving. Why can people even get their license back after putting lives in jeopardy? A guy I know was almost killed by a drunk driver but "luckily" just left him with mental deficiencies and the guy who hit him is back driving again.

For those of you that are so adamant about banning guns or implementing major restrictions on gun ownership along with greater punishment for violations with guns, why not have similar restrictions in regards to alcohol? Legally, it would be a much easier hurdle to jump over.

you should see how soft the courts are here on drunk drivers, even those who've badly injured or even killed someone else, they get way too many chances and very rarely have their licences cancelled.

 

[Deleted member 848]

With the President's recent executive action (and crying) on background checks for guns due to senseless deaths, there has been a lot of debate on gun control ( an ongoing debate actually).
There are roughly 16,000 homicides in this country each year. Of those, approximately 11,000 lives are taken by gun. How many of those homicides would not occur if we had better gun control is unknown, but it would probably be a good part of the 11,000 that could be saved. If life is precious, should we not do what needs to be done to save lives? Let's be honest though. The Constitution as well as the Supreme Court has held that we have a right to bear arms. That is a significant hurdle to overcome. Would my right to keep guns be worth saving 1,000+ lives each year? The answer for me is yes.

Now, to shift gears. There is another culprit in this country that kills far more people each year, that does not have constitutional protection. That is alcohol. Drunk driving ALONE is responsible for approximately 13,500 deaths each year in the US. Additionally, studies have shown that roughly HALF of all homicides are committed by intoxicated perpetrators. So add another 8,000 to that list. Even without the 29,000 alcohol induced deaths or the 18,000 that die of alcohol related liver disease, the numbers are staggering.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
https://www.jaapl.org/content/22/1/133.full.pdf

I am an avid drinker, and do so responsibly. I love a good scotch or belgium ale after a long day. I am an avid gun owner, and again, am very responsible. I know we tried prohibition in this country and it failed. In my opinion, we are way to lax with our drinking laws, especially in regards to drunk driving. Why can people even get their license back after putting lives in jeopardy? A guy I know was almost killed by a drunk driver but "luckily" just left him with mental deficiencies and the guy who hit him is back driving again.

For those of you that are so adamant about banning guns or implementing major restrictions on gun ownership along with greater punishment for violations with guns, why not have similar restrictions in regards to alcohol? Legally, it would be a much easier hurdle to jump over.

Because other nations have shown to have lower rates of alcohol-induced death despite the same liberties as the US-- while no nation with has managed to pull off low gun violence while having a level of firearm & ammunition access tantamount to that of the United States.

Let's give this thread the good ol' close now, now that we've clarified things

 

[JAZZGASM]

Because other nations have shown to have lower rates of alcohol-induced death despite the same liberties as the US-- while no nation with has managed to pull off low gun violence while having a level of firearm & ammunition access tantamount to that of the United States.

Let's give this thread the good ol' close now, now that we've clarified things

Show me these countries with as lax of punishment as us for drunk driving that has much fewer deaths.

In regards to guns, two other countries have Constitutional gun protection. Guatemala and Mexico. Both have gun homicide rates many times higher than us.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Show me these countries with as lax of punishment as us for drunk driving that has much fewer deaths.

In regards to guns, two other countries have Constitutional gun protection. Guatemala and Mexico. Both have gun homicide rates many times higher than us.

1) are you able to read? I'll restate my question to save you some difficulty: find one country with US-level gun access with low homicide rates. I'll wait.
2) i thought you were arguing for alcohol prohibition or something (to make a silly, flawed point). I am 100% for a government enhancing sentencing for drunk driving in America. Not sure what that very obvious conclusion has to do with guns.

 

[fishonjazz]

We don't have room in the jails/prisons for all the drunk drivers that would need to be incarcerated with steeper penalties.

If you take away all drunk drivers driving licenses for life then you severely limit those people from making a living which might have the effect of turning those people into worse criminals who have to turn to crime (robberies, drug dealing etc) or welfare to survive.

 

[Deleted member 848]

We don't have room in the jails/prisons for all the drunk drivers that would need to be incarcerated with steeper penalties.

If you take away all drunk drivers driving licenses for life then you severely limit those people from making a living which might have the effect of turning those people into worse criminals who have to turn to crime (robberies, drug dealing etc) or welfare to survive.

Fortunately there's mountains of evidence of other jurisdictions tightening their intoxicated driving laws, and it hasn't really caused any of the mayhem that you've described as possible consequences.

So, not really anything to worry about. This isn't gonna be another "war on drugs" debacle

 

[b_line]

We don't have room in the jails/prisons for all the drunk drivers that would need to be incarcerated with steeper penalties.

If you take away all drunk drivers driving licenses for life then you severely limit those people from making a living which might have the effect of turning those people into worse criminals who have to turn to crime (robberies, drug dealing etc) or welfare to survive.

Get on a bus. I have zero patience for someone who would drive drunk. I understand the hesitancy in pushing harsher laws for drunk drivers, but the liberties and freedoms of the people who are walking on the sidewalk or driving responsibly far outweigh the forfeited freedom of the drunk driver.


Also, the president's executive action on guns seems extremely reasonable. I'm a gun owner and I have not seen anything I disagree with yet.

 

[bigb]

We don't have room in the jails/prisons for all the drunk drivers that would need to be incarcerated with steeper penalties.

If you take away all drunk drivers driving licenses for life then you severely limit those people from making a living which might have the effect of turning those people into worse criminals who have to turn to crime (robberies, drug dealing etc) or welfare to survive.

Or, and much more likely, there is suddenly an even bigger mountain of unlicensed drivers. Much like the theme of "make find illegal and only criminals will have guns", if you take all these licenses away, you'll end up with unlicensed drivers.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Or, and much more likely, there is suddenly an even bigger mountain of unlicensed drivers. Much like the theme of "make find illegal and only criminals will have guns", if you take all these licenses away, you'll end up with unlicensed drivers.

Has this happened in nations with tighter regulations for drinking and driving?

Man. Do Americans forget that there are 200 other countries in the world?

 

[bigb]

Has this happened in nations with tighter regulations for drinking and driving?

Man. Do Americans forget that there are 200 other countries in the world?

I have no idea what data an Internet search would provide. I have no interest in doing it, nor the time to do it. I personally know several people who had their licenses revoked/suspended for this. It didn't stop them from driving. I'll take real life experience over an Internet graph any day.
Do you forget that other people might have experience with something that contradicts your opinion?

 

[Stoked]

Because other nations have shown to have lower rates of alcohol-induced death despite the same liberties as the US-- while no nation with has managed to pull off low gun violence while having a level of firearm & ammunition access tantamount to that of the United States.

Let's give this thread the good ol' close now, now that we've clarified things

False. Switzerland has 45.7 guns per 100 residents. 4th in the world (behind only the US, Yemen and Serbia). They only have 6.4 firearm deaths per 100,000 residents. The US has 10.27 deaths per 100,000 residents.

Perhaps the biggest difference between Switzerland and American in regards to guns is that most men in Switzerland are militia trained and armed. T hey keep said weapons in their homes.

But Switzerland seems to be the exception not the rule.

 

[Stoked]

Has this happened in nations with tighter regulations for drinking and driving?

Man. Do Americans forget that there are 200 other countries in the world?

We don't forget. It's just that only another dozen matter. Kind of...

 

[Gameface]

I'm all for stiffer penalties for drunk driving. And by that I mean stiffer penalties for people who are severely drunk. I personally think 0.08BAC is a low threshold and the penalties for a 0.08BAC to 0.12BAC should be lower than they are now, although still significant. Then, the penalties from 0.13BAC to 0.18BAC should be made more significant and penalties above 0.19BAC should be very severe.

Hopefully self-driving cars get here soon and it's not so much of an issue anymore.

I believe that texting while driving should carry the exact same penalties as I'd propose for someone with a 0.13BAC, because they are actually far more impaired than a person with that level of alcohol content.

As far as the new gun regulation. Meh. I have made several private firearm sales. I have never been in the business of selling firearms. I'm pretty sure this new law would not have applied to me, although one problem with this new law is that it is vague. I actually would have preferred the President make it simple and require a background check for all firearms sales, which is not at all what happened here. The "gun show loophole" has not been closed, it's just been given fuzzier edges.

 

[JAZZGASM]

1) are you able to read? I'll restate my question to save you some difficulty: find one country with US-level gun access with low homicide rates. I'll wait.
2) i thought you were arguing for alcohol prohibition or something (to make a silly, flawed point). I am 100% for a government enhancing sentencing for drunk driving in America. Not sure what that very obvious conclusion has to do with guns.

First off, I'm not sure you can read. My original post clearly stated that I am willing to give up guns to save lives. That is not the issue AT ALL. The issue is guns are constitutionally protected in this country, and let's be realistic, a ban or severe restrictions is an uphill climb. I think banning guns completely or even severe restrictions will be next to impossible in the U.S. because of the Constitution and the court cases interpreting the 2nd Amendment. Not saying we shouldn't try.

You response is an impossibility and you know it. No countries have access to guns at the level we do, and none have the level of Constitutional protection that we do. Iceland, per capita, has the 2nd highest ownership, and next to no homicides. Studies have shown that the up to half of all gun murders in the US are drug related. The USA borders Mexico which gives access to drug runners. We are situated much differently than many other countries.

My point is, if saving lives REALLY mattered, we would go after senseless alcohol deaths too. We would focus on mental health improvements instead of discouraging people from seeking medical help (Doctors can now report you to the FBI to restrict your right to own a gun if you seek help for mental issues) Again, your response is other countries with similar access to alcohol have fewer deaths. So ****ing what? The USA has more access to cars and we drive more mileage than citizens of other countries. And our laws on drunk driving are very lax.

I don't care about comparisons. I care about lives. Do you not see the hypocrisy? I understand many people will still drive without a license, but I guarantee far fewer would if the penalty was extreme. People do it because they know there are limited consequences.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I'm all for stiffer penalties for drunk driving. And by that I mean stiffer penalties for people who are severely drunk. I personally think 0.08BAC is a low threshold and the penalties for a 0.08BAC to 0.12BAC should be lower than they are now, although still significant. Then, the penalties from 0.13BAC to 0.18BAC should be made more significant and penalties above 0.19BAC should be very severe.

Hopefully self-driving cars get here soon and it's not so much of an issue anymore.

I believe that texting while driving should carry the exact same penalties as I'd propose for someone with a 0.13BAC, because they are actually far more impaired than a person with that level of alcohol content.

As far as the new gun regulation. Meh. I have made several private firearm sales. I have never been in the business of selling firearms. I'm pretty sure this new law would not have applied to me, although one problem with this new law is that it is vague. I actually would have preferred the President make it simple and require a background check for all firearms sales, which is not at all what happened here. The "gun show loophole" has not been closed, it's just been given fuzzier edges.

Agreed. Getting pulled over at .08 should be penalized, but for people that get pulled over at 3x the limit should get no breaks. No excuse.

As far as the executive action, President's have had that power for a long time. Obama just pushes the limit, which is not a good thing in my opinion. It just erodes the checks and balances that our system of government has.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Or, and much more likely, there is suddenly an even bigger mountain of unlicensed drivers. Much like the theme of "make find illegal and only criminals will have guns", if you take all these licenses away, you'll end up with unlicensed drivers.

I think the penalty for drunk driving should be severe. Maybe not jail, but a GPS tracking anklet and loss of license. That way a probation officer or other official could track your movement and check to see if you are driving. Again, we have to decide the value of a life. I think putting more people in jail for risking my life is reasonable.

Once we have these systems in place, the number of drunk drivers will decrease, and probably by a lot. There are not a lot of consequences for drunk driving. A guy I know has 3 DUI's with very little consequences (did lose license for a year).

 

[fishonjazz]

There are not a lot of consequences for drunk driving.

I disagree.
A friend of mine got pulled over drunk driving and went to jail, lost his job (couldn't show up for work cause he was in jail), and had to pay about $10,000 in court costs and fines.

Totally ruined his life.

 

[b_line]

I disagree.
A friend of mine got pulled over drunk driving and went to jail, lost his job (couldn't show up for work cause he was in jail), and had to pay about $10,000 in court costs and fines.

Totally ruined his life.

On a Friday night it would have been a lot different. Unless he works weekends. But you get the picture.

 

[fishonjazz]

On a Friday night it would have been a lot different. Unless he works weekends. But you get the picture.

I still think that 10,000 dollars and time in jail is a big deterrent