Alcohol Deaths Outnumber Firearm Murders, So Should We Bring Back Prohibition?

[Politico]

10,228 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2010.

8,775 people were murdered by firearms in 2010. *

At this rate, are liberals going to start calling for the return of prohibition and/or "automobile control"?

* - Unable to verify how many of these deaths involved alcohol/drugs either directly (i.e., murderer was under the influence) or indirectly (i.e., gang-related disputes over drugs).

Sources:

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[Politico]

Liberals do not have a leg to stand on with respect to gun control. Most incidents of improper firearm use involve alcohol/drugs in some capacity. Prohibition of alcohol/drugs clearly does not work, so why would prohibition of firearms be any different?

The best we can do is better help the mentally ill, and raise awareness about what drugs/alcohol can lead to if one does not watch it.

[Politico]

Strawman is a strawman.

Not only this, but there are far more firearm deaths than are suggested here. Suicides far outnumber murders, of course. But that's far too taboo to talk about in America.

And how many suicides have absolutely no association whatsoever with drugs (illicit and/or prescription alike) and/or alcohol?

Come on...

[Politico]

We already have a well known historical example to show that alcohol prohibition is not effective, is veritably unenforceable, and causes a noticeable increase in violent crime due to black market forces.

Why would prohibition on firearms be different?

[Politico]

We already have a well known historical example to show that alcohol prohibition is not effective, is veritably unenforceable, and causes a noticeable increase in violent crime due to black market forces.

Why would prohibition on firearms be different?

One is a consumable good and the other is a durable one, which obviously affects how often consumers buy the product. This affects the model of demand, as consumers will repeatedly buy one and only buy the other in a limited fashion. Additionally, one is easy to make, requires common materials, and only a little know how (to the point that people can make it at home without too much effort, if they are so inclined, which many were during prohibition) while the other requires specialized manufacturing equipment, materials, and knowledge to produce. These factors make one far more lucrative than the other, and as such you'd see a far bigger black market for alcohol than guns. These are the same reasons we the war on drugs is an utter failure and yet we are mostly able to enforce the ban on automatic weapons.

All of this goes out the window because you've not accounted for the fact that we already have more firearms than people in the country, and most of these firearms can last well over 100 years if properly maintained.

Also, it sounds like Star Trek, but 3D printing is going to make the creation of some durable goods, even guns, much easier.

[Politico]

All of this goes out the window because you've not accounted for the fact that we already have more firearms than people in the country, and most of these firearms can last well over 100 years if properly maintained.

The problem you posit here is primarily one that only applies to a ban at the start of it. Presumably any prohibition on guns would involve confiscating the existing ones. I would expect some violent resistance, but the vast majority of people will just hand them over to avoid trouble.

God no. If the federal government tried that, many state governments would start arresting federal agents who try to enforce such legislation. It would be a civil war. The point is moot because the federal government is headed towards massive cuts to avoid defaulting; they do not have the resources to attempt to confiscate over 300 million firearms across the country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LCD TVs were primitive in 1999, too. Technology advances rapidly. 3D printing has the potential to dramatically transform the global economy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People said the same about computers thirty, if not twenty, years ago.

[Politico]

Even prescription pain killers are associated with more accidental deaths than guns:

"Prescription painkiller overdoses killed nearly 15,000 people in the US in 2008. This is more than 3 times the 4,000 people killed by these drugs in 1999."

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/painkilleroverdoses/?mobile=nocontent

Liberal logic says adults are not responsible enough to properly use pain killers, just like guns, so we need to ban both!

America has a problem with prescription medications and mental illness, not firearms. In fact, I am going to go so far as to say the primary cause of everything being so screwed up today is prescription medications. The first step to recovery is admitting there is a problem.

[Politico]

So, sum up your entire point in one sentence. That because people also have accidents with other things, deadly weapons should be completely left alone? What kind of weak-ass argument is that? You'd think our propensities towards drug and alcohol abuse would be an argument for more gun control. I mean, come on, at least try...

The argument is that drug/alcohol use are the root cause of most firearm murders/accidents/suicides. We do not restrict automobile usage simply because drunk drivers kill people with automobiles. Likewise, we should not restrict firearm ownership simply because some drunks/drug users kill people, including themselves, with firearms.

More people die from accidental overdoses ON PAIN KILLERS ALONE than the total number of firearm murders AND accidents, so why is the presence of firearm accidents/murders used as an argument for gun control?

[Politico]

Alcohol Deaths Outnumber Firearm Murders, So Should We Bring Back Prohibition?

Banning alcohol will not reduce the number of fire arm deaths.  Neither will banning movies, hip hop, or anything else other than guns.

Banning alcohol did not reduce the use of alcohol, so what are you trying to get at?

BTW, are you in favor of disarming the American people in the same way that the Soviets disarmed the Russian people?

[Politico]

Of course, the point is that alcohol kills far more people than propelled bullets do. More people commit vehicular manslaughter under the influence of alcohol than the number of people who use a firearm to commit murder. Over 100 people were killed in the Station nightclub fire in 2003, and alcohol was a contributing factor. Do we react to these statistics, to tragedies like the Station nightclub fire, by calling for a ban on alcohol? Of course not.

The point is to bring perspective to an emotional debate.

[Politico]

Why don't you just shut up...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXk2YTXKBFo#t=00m35s

[Politico]

Oops, I edited Politico's post instead of responding to it, by accident. Sorry.

In any case, it's a combination of comparing apples vs. oranges + cherry-picking statistics.

It's about bringing perspective to the national debate on gun control.

No ifs, ands or buts about it: Alcohol kills more people than firearms. In other words, calling for greater regulation of firearms is as absurd as calling for greater regulation on alcohol. Calling for one but not the other is inconsistent no matter how you slice or dice it.

[Politico]

Alcohol Deaths Outnumber Firearm Murders, So Should We Bring Back Prohibition?

Banning alcohol will not reduce the number of fire arm deaths.  Neither will banning movies, hip hop, or anything else other than guns.

Banning alcohol did not reduce the use of alcohol, so what are you trying to get at?

That's a lie.  Banning alcohol did reduce the use of alcohol.  What I'm trying to get at is you don't have any idea what you are talking about.  Actually I'm not trying.  I just proved it.

The conclusion of a peer-reviewed paper in the American Economic Review:

"Changes in consumption during Prohibition were modest given the change in price. This suggests that legal deterrents had little ef- fect on limiting consumption outside of their effect on price. Social pressure and respect for the law did not go far in reducing consumption during Prohibition."

Source: http://www.tomfeiling.com/archive/AlcoholConsumptionDuringProhibition.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you favor disarming the American people in the exact same way the Soviets disarmed Russians and sought to disarm Americans. Those who seek to burn the second amendment are enemies of the Constitution.

[Politico]

Politico from your own cherrypicked article...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, prohibition was associated with consumption declining initially, but it quickly rebounded especially when you account for the dramatic change in price brought about by driving the good into the black market. To re-quote the authors:

"Changes in consumption during Prohibition were modest given the change in price. This suggests that legal deterrents had little effect on limiting consumption outside of their effect on price. Social pressure and respect for the law did not go far in reducing consumption during Prohibition."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FYI: America is a free nation, where law-abiding citizens have the right to defend their person and property with the use of privately owned firearms. It is not a Politburo-run state where the government confiscates firearms because YOU are too afraid to own one for your own protection and would prefer to force your choice onto everybody else. People who own firearms are not trying to force you to own a firearm, so why are you trying to impose your choice not to own a firearm onto these people?

The only REAL solution to the problem of gun violence is increased institutionalization of the mentally ill coupled with harsher penalties for possession of a firearm while committing a felony (e.g., add 5-10 years to a sentence if somebody is found guilty of a crime while possessing a firearm; add 10-20 years to a sentence if somebody is found guilty of a crime which included the firing of a gun).

As bad as drunk driving was 30 years ago, we did not react to the problem by banning alcohol and/or vehicles. We imposed harsher penalties. We need to do the same thing to those who MISUSE firearms, not those who simply wish to own firearms for self-defense purposes. We do not take away the choice (American is all about choice!) to drink simply because some drinkers end up committing vehicular manslaughter. The same applies to firearms: We must not take away the right to bear arms simply because some of the 330 million people in the country misuse firearms.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is your point? Producing opiates is a natural process too. Computers don't grow on trees, so should we ban them simply because some people use them to steal identities and exploit children? Of course not. Are you in favor of legalizing only naturally produced goods/services and banning all man-made products/services? Absurd.