Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
Do me the courtesy of watching the video and telling me what you think. Then I will take a little time and try to address your questions (which would probably be better addressed in another thread).

[/ QUOTE ]
I checked it out. There are definitely some interesting points. I think that there are some logical problems with some of their examples though.

They said, paraphrasing:
In 19xx 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs. Then the US cracked down and made them illegal and started the War on Drugs and spent billions. Many years later there is still 1.3% of the population addicted to drugs.

The problem is that if they weren't made illegal then maybe 5% of people would be addicted to drugs now.

Anyways, for what it's worth I think that marijuana should be legalized, but not the more dangerous drugs. Also I'm a weed user, so that explains the bias, but it also seems like a fairly harmless drug compared to some other legal ones.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well if no civilians in the US had guns then it would be a safer country to live in. This can never be proven factually but to me and many other logical people it is quite obvious. I also think that reducing the number of guns in the country by as much as possible would make it a safer place.

[/ QUOTE ]

The empirical evidence in great britain contradicts this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've heard that mentioned before. Does the evidence just show that overall crime has increased? Or that violent crimes and gun deaths have also increased?

I don't want to be a proof nit, but if this is the only country with that evidence it isn't exactly conclusive. There could have been other social factors which caused the increased crime and violence that coincided with the increased gun restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please look back through this thread ... citations to a number of articles from a variety of sources supports this proposition. I know this is a long thread, but these facts have been posted over and over again earlier in the thread.

I don't want to be a "google is your friend" nit, but it really isn't that hard. I just googled "did alcohol usage increase with prohibition" and got your answer for you:

[ QUOTE ]
But the question is, "Does it work?" Did alcohol prohibition work back in the 1920s? Did it succeed in its primary goal - eliminating "demon alcohol"? It is true that alcohol consumption dropped considerably shortly after prohibition took effect. But, this was only a temporary condition caused by the disruption in the supply of alcohol. Almost immediately after the legal breweries and saloons were closed down, speakeasies began sprouting up to take their place. It took a few years for the black market to get going, but as soon as it did, alcohol consumption nearly returned back to normal.

It is difficult to get exact figures on alcohol consumption from the 1920s since, after all, it was an underground activity. Some guesses show that in the waning years of prohibition alcohol consumption was at around 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels - other people argue that there was actually an increase. The only "official" figures I have found show that alcohol consumption in 1934 (the year after prohibition) was 50% of the level in 1919 (the year before). But even this number is somewhat suspect since a few state and counties held onto prohibition for a few years after the repeal of the 18th amendment - So, it is probably safe to assume that they had a sizable black market as well. In any case, the numbers show that prohibition fell well short of achieving its primary objective - the total elimination of alcohol.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-prohibition.html

NCAces

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
41,650 deaths related to motor vehicle accidents,
17,229 in falls at home and on the job,
3,306 from water in drowning,
19,457 from poisoning, in the same year,
3,369 due to fire or burns,
3,200 due to choking, and
900 from guns
Note that the top category of vehicle accidents is 45 times greater than the bottom
category of guns. Should we outlaw cars, and ladders?

If guns are so dangerous, why is it like 18 or so times more likely to die from a fall? lol

http://www.lindleyonline.com/gunstats/stats.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

That number depends on who did the counting.

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't want to be a "google is your friend" nit, but it really isn't that hard. I just googled "did alcohol usage increase with prohibition" and got your answer for you:

[ QUOTE ]
But the question is, "Does it work?" Did alcohol prohibition work back in the 1920s? Did it succeed in its primary goal - eliminating "demon alcohol"? It is true that alcohol consumption dropped considerably shortly after prohibition took effect. But, this was only a temporary condition caused by the disruption in the supply of alcohol. Almost immediately after the legal breweries and saloons were closed down, speakeasies began sprouting up to take their place. It took a few years for the black market to get going, but as soon as it did, alcohol consumption nearly returned back to normal.

It is difficult to get exact figures on alcohol consumption from the 1920s since, after all, it was an underground activity. Some guesses show that in the waning years of prohibition alcohol consumption was at around 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels - other people argue that there was actually an increase. The only "official" figures I have found show that alcohol consumption in 1934 (the year after prohibition) was 50% of the level in 1919 (the year before). But even this number is somewhat suspect since a few state and counties held onto prohibition for a few years after the repeal of the 18th amendment - So, it is probably safe to assume that they had a sizable black market as well. In any case, the numbers show that prohibition fell well short of achieving its primary objective - the total elimination of alcohol.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-prohibition.html

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I like to make assumptions. That was a rhetorical question, of course alcohol usage decreased with prohibition. Why would I need to look that up? If it goes from being readily available to more difficult to obtain then its consumption will decrease. So that link proved the obvious, that it decreased but didn't eliminate alcohol consumption.

I'm guessing that internet poker playing decreased in the US since the Frist law too. But I'm a wild man so I'll keep on making my crazy assumptions without verifying them.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well if no civilians in the US had guns then it would be a safer country to live in. This can never be proven factually but to me and many other logical people it is quite obvious. I also think that reducing the number of guns in the country by as much as possible would make it a safer place.

[/ QUOTE ]

The empirical evidence in great britain contradicts this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've heard that mentioned before. Does the evidence just show that overall crime has increased? Or that violent crimes and gun deaths have also increased?

I don't want to be a proof nit, but if this is the only country with that evidence it isn't exactly conclusive. There could have been other social factors which caused the increased crime and violence that coincided with the increased gun restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please look back through this thread ... citations to a number of articles from a variety of sources supports this proposition. I know this is a long thread, but these facts have been posted over and over again earlier in the thread.

I don't want to be a "google is your friend" nit, but it really isn't that hard. I just googled "did alcohol usage increase with prohibition" and got your answer for you:

[ QUOTE ]
But the question is, "Does it work?" Did alcohol prohibition work back in the 1920s? Did it succeed in its primary goal - eliminating "demon alcohol"? It is true that alcohol consumption dropped considerably shortly after prohibition took effect. But, this was only a temporary condition caused by the disruption in the supply of alcohol. Almost immediately after the legal breweries and saloons were closed down, speakeasies began sprouting up to take their place. It took a few years for the black market to get going, but as soon as it did, alcohol consumption nearly returned back to normal.

It is difficult to get exact figures on alcohol consumption from the 1920s since, after all, it was an underground activity. Some guesses show that in the waning years of prohibition alcohol consumption was at around 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels - other people argue that there was actually an increase. The only "official" figures I have found show that alcohol consumption in 1934 (the year after prohibition) was 50% of the level in 1919 (the year before). But even this number is somewhat suspect since a few state and counties held onto prohibition for a few years after the repeal of the 18th amendment - So, it is probably safe to assume that they had a sizable black market as well. In any case, the numbers show that prohibition fell well short of achieving its primary objective - the total elimination of alcohol.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-prohibition.html

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

How many trillion dollars was pissed down the toilet on that endeavor? How many people murdered in the streets, how many wives made husbandless, how many children made fatherless?

What to increse crime, murder, prison populations, clog the courts, increase the risk of people walking down the street? Simply make a substance that is in high demand illegal. Right then and there the mafia and violent gangs step in to control the distribution, fighting wiht guns for territory in the streets.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't want to be a "google is your friend" nit, but it really isn't that hard. I just googled "did alcohol usage increase with prohibition" and got your answer for you:

[ QUOTE ]
But the question is, "Does it work?" Did alcohol prohibition work back in the 1920s? Did it succeed in its primary goal - eliminating "demon alcohol"? It is true that alcohol consumption dropped considerably shortly after prohibition took effect. But, this was only a temporary condition caused by the disruption in the supply of alcohol. Almost immediately after the legal breweries and saloons were closed down, speakeasies began sprouting up to take their place. It took a few years for the black market to get going, but as soon as it did, alcohol consumption nearly returned back to normal.

It is difficult to get exact figures on alcohol consumption from the 1920s since, after all, it was an underground activity. Some guesses show that in the waning years of prohibition alcohol consumption was at around 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels - other people argue that there was actually an increase. The only "official" figures I have found show that alcohol consumption in 1934 (the year after prohibition) was 50% of the level in 1919 (the year before). But even this number is somewhat suspect since a few state and counties held onto prohibition for a few years after the repeal of the 18th amendment - So, it is probably safe to assume that they had a sizable black market as well. In any case, the numbers show that prohibition fell well short of achieving its primary objective - the total elimination of alcohol.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-prohibition.html

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I like to make assumptions. That was a rhetorical question, of course alcohol usage decreased with prohibition. Why would I need to look that up? If it goes from being readily available to more difficult to obtain then its consumption will decrease. So that link proved the obvious, that it decreased but didn't eliminate alcohol consumption.

I'm guessing that internet poker playing decreased in the US since the Frist law too. But I'm a wild man so I'll keep on making my crazy assumptions without verifying them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to factor in the murders and costs of cops and jails and courts and making of alcohol with dangerous products into your calculations too or use tunnel vision to see one aspect of the big picture?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do me the courtesy of watching the video and telling me what you think. Then I will take a little time and try to address your questions (which would probably be better addressed in another thread).

[/ QUOTE ]
I checked it out. There are definitely some interesting points. I think that there are some logical problems with some of their examples though.

They said, paraphrasing:
In 19xx 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs. Then the US cracked down and made them illegal and started the War on Drugs and spent billions. Many years later there is still 1.3% of the population addicted to drugs.

The problem is that if they weren't made illegal then maybe 5% of people would be addicted to drugs now.

Anyways, for what it's worth I think that marijuana should be legalized, but not the more dangerous drugs. Also I'm a weed user, so that explains the bias, but it also seems like a fairly harmless drug compared to some other legal ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heroin is also a pretty harmless drug.

The dangers come from the criminalization of the drug. You can safely inject heroin daily and live well into your 80's. It is benign to the body, does not damage the liver. And if you do not use amounts that will make you 'nod' you can function at work while on the substance. (product contamination is still a significant factor, as is potency, since random street dealers mix it).

But when it is illegal and you are not wealthy your days are spent chasing down money to maintain your habit. YOu spend money that would otherwise go towards food and shelter, etc. The cops are the ones you are dealing with, not medical professionals or social workers because it is seen as a police problem rather than a social or medical problem. I could go on...


And there is another side to the coin about your argument 'maybe there would have been more users if it was not made illegal'

that is...

maybe there would have been less users if it remained legal.

supposing with maybe's isn't really a good way to look at society. I think their video is very compelling. there are also other statistics from studies where heroin is given out and peoples lives improve from what they were prior to them being treated as criminals (not to mention a severe reduction in violent and property crimes)

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't want to be a "google is your friend" nit, but it really isn't that hard. I just googled "did alcohol usage increase with prohibition" and got your answer for you:

[ QUOTE ]
But the question is, "Does it work?" Did alcohol prohibition work back in the 1920s? Did it succeed in its primary goal - eliminating "demon alcohol"? It is true that alcohol consumption dropped considerably shortly after prohibition took effect. But, this was only a temporary condition caused by the disruption in the supply of alcohol. Almost immediately after the legal breweries and saloons were closed down, speakeasies began sprouting up to take their place. It took a few years for the black market to get going, but as soon as it did, alcohol consumption nearly returned back to normal.

It is difficult to get exact figures on alcohol consumption from the 1920s since, after all, it was an underground activity. Some guesses show that in the waning years of prohibition alcohol consumption was at around 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels - other people argue that there was actually an increase. The only "official" figures I have found show that alcohol consumption in 1934 (the year after prohibition) was 50% of the level in 1919 (the year before). But even this number is somewhat suspect since a few state and counties held onto prohibition for a few years after the repeal of the 18th amendment - So, it is probably safe to assume that they had a sizable black market as well. In any case, the numbers show that prohibition fell well short of achieving its primary objective - the total elimination of alcohol.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-prohibition.html

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I like to make assumptions. That was a rhetorical question, of course alcohol usage decreased with prohibition. Why would I need to look that up? If it goes from being readily available to more difficult to obtain then its consumption will decrease. So that link proved the obvious, that it decreased but didn't eliminate alcohol consumption.

I'm guessing that internet poker playing decreased in the US since the Frist law too. But I'm a wild man so I'll keep on making my crazy assumptions without verifying them.

[/ QUOTE ]

pyedog,

I'm sure you realize that there exist quite a number of things that seem logical or intuitively obvious, but that on closer inspection, turn out to be surprisingly different. This pattern occurs in science, in poker, in puzzles, and in many other areas. Of course, it occurs sometimes in politics too.

I would really suggest that you spend at least a bit of time reading some of the linked information regarding guns.

Violent crime in the U.K. has indeed increased as gun controls were increasingly implemented. Of course there could be many reasons for that.

It's one thing to be opinionated and to think one is correct about something; it's entirely another to wilfully shut out all evidence to the contrary. No one is suggesting you become a research fanatic, but at least familiarizing yourself with some of the compiled statistics would be a good idea if you intend to discuss such matters further.

There's nothing wrong with making assumptions, and making assumptions is a useful tool. For assumptions to remain a useful tool, they must be tempered or adjusted as new evidence presents itself. I would hope you see the truth to this statement.

Anyway, thanks for reading this post, and I look forward to reading more of your perspective on these matters.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah he sounds like a great person. Hopefully he used his millions to buy a lot more weapons so he can protect himself from the government which supports darkies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure youre happy his family is dead.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't want to be a "google is your friend" nit, but it really isn't that hard. I just googled "did alcohol usage increase with prohibition" and got your answer for you:

[ QUOTE ]
But the question is, "Does it work?" Did alcohol prohibition work back in the 1920s? Did it succeed in its primary goal - eliminating "demon alcohol"? It is true that alcohol consumption dropped considerably shortly after prohibition took effect. But, this was only a temporary condition caused by the disruption in the supply of alcohol. Almost immediately after the legal breweries and saloons were closed down, speakeasies began sprouting up to take their place. It took a few years for the black market to get going, but as soon as it did, alcohol consumption nearly returned back to normal.

It is difficult to get exact figures on alcohol consumption from the 1920s since, after all, it was an underground activity. Some guesses show that in the waning years of prohibition alcohol consumption was at around 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels - other people argue that there was actually an increase. The only "official" figures I have found show that alcohol consumption in 1934 (the year after prohibition) was 50% of the level in 1919 (the year before). But even this number is somewhat suspect since a few state and counties held onto prohibition for a few years after the repeal of the 18th amendment - So, it is probably safe to assume that they had a sizable black market as well. In any case, the numbers show that prohibition fell well short of achieving its primary objective - the total elimination of alcohol.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-prohibition.html

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I like to make assumptions. That was a rhetorical question, of course alcohol usage decreased with prohibition. Why would I need to look that up? If it goes from being readily available to more difficult to obtain then its consumption will decrease. So that link proved the obvious, that it decreased but didn't eliminate alcohol consumption.

I'm guessing that internet poker playing decreased in the US since the Frist law too. But I'm a wild man so I'll keep on making my crazy assumptions without verifying them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, proof nit, the point is that just because the correlation is there for some things, it doesn't mean it will be for all. In this case, I believe the proof is on the side of violence goes up as guns go down, even if you don't "feel" that is right.

NCAces