US gun related murder rates compared to other countries

[QUOTE=Graviton]Not America, but Australia. They don't have our equipment. They could use our laws more than us lol, a big island with no border connection with any other nation and a small population with only even smaller armed personnel?

If WW3 happened, they would be an easy target.[/QUOTE]
After this post, do you think any other 'smart' ideas coming out of you should be taken seriously? Someone who thinks civilians owning arms will help when the national army is defeated? I don't think you passed middle school history.

Sorry for the personal attacks, but it's just getting too ridiculous at this point. I applause the other guys that continue to give you guys attention and take you seriously.

[QUOTE=bmulls]95% of ISH are liberal city kids who don't appreciate or enjoy hunting or target shooting. My opinions are only stupid to you because you disagree with them.[/QUOTE]
So... only target shooting or hunting guys are the ones who know how to appreciate guns? Really? Other people's reasoning are flawed because they dont appreciate "hunting" as a hobby?

I'll be honest, I live in a city and have almost no idea about hunting. But using a hobby to defend possession of arms? really? We've come to this point? What positives does hunting bring to the public? How does a nation benefit from hunting, to merit a hobby being one of the reason for owning arms?

[QUOTE=bmulls]95% of ISH are liberal city kids who don't appreciate or enjoy hunting or target shooting. My opinions are only stupid to you because you disagree with them.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't consider my self a liberal but in Canada we have an extensive hunting culture but are still able to restrict guns. Restrictions on certain weapons is not going to take hunting, target shooting, or protection away from people who own guns. However, I believe if any changes occur, they will be in place for future gun owners due to grand fathering in regulations.

[QUOTE=ripthekik]Why does NBA posts have to do with this? Completely unrelated.
I have used logic and reasoning to debate this topic, yet you guys come back with completely retarded responses. Your knowledge and logic is lacking, as well as education. Just read your own responses, even a child knows it's not to be taken seriously.

I don't think I even need to say anything more. Read the posts the last 2 days. Everyone has been rational and logical, seems like the one who is calling everyone else emotional might be the one himself. When 95% of ISH are continuously correcting your stupid perspective, you know something's wrong.[/QUOTE]
Could you give examples of my "retarded" responses? You are the one being emotional and immature. I have said I support restrictions already, I don't know what the **** you presented as a realistic solution.

Again, you are just throwing insults and not even presenting your own argument. You are simply deflecting the points and just spewing nonsense.

[QUOTE=ripthekik]So... only target shooting or hunting guys are the ones who know how to appreciate guns? Really? Other people's reasoning are flawed because they dont appreciate "hunting" as a hobby?

I'll be honest, I live in a city and have almost no idea about hunting. But using a hobby to defend possession of arms? really? We've come to this point? What positives does hunting bring to the public? How does a nation benefit from hunting, to merit a hobby being one of the reason for owning arms?[/QUOTE]

We've already been through this. How does a nation benefit from alcohol? Does getting drunk merit the deaths of 15,000+ people every year?

You won't even answer that question, you'll :facepalm and call me an idiot and ride your high horse off into the distance.

[QUOTE=Graviton]Could you give examples of my "retarded" responses? You are the one being emotional and immature. I have said I support restrictions already, I don't know what the **** you presented as a realistic solution.

Again, you are just throwing insults and not even presenting your own argument. You are simply deflecting the points and just spewing nonsense.[/QUOTE]
I posted one of your retarded posts up there.

My stance is clear, and I have posted it many times. I know banning guns is impossible in the U.S. at this point. There is no point talking about it. However, they need to start working on gun control now. Start slow, but START. Allowing anyone will go to Walmarts now to buy a gun simply isn't helping the situation.

[QUOTE=ripthekik]After this post, do you think any other 'smart' ideas coming out of you should be taken seriously? Someone who thinks civilians owning arms will help when the national army is defeated? I don't think you passed middle school history.

Sorry for the personal attacks, but it's just getting too ridiculous at this point. I applause the other guys that continue to give you guys attention and take you seriously.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Graviton]I think it's just you being too extreme and also [B]not detecting sarcasm[/B]. Me and bmulls presented rational solutions and supported tighter restrictions. Some others are just emotional and want unrealistic bans.

You shouldn't talk about middle school antics, most of your posts are childish insults about Lebron. You act a lot like a kid with lot of insecurities. Usually the guy who starts throwing out insults and stereotypes is the one with no argument or knowledge. Most of the discussion we had lately was logical, even if heated at times.[/QUOTE]...

[QUOTE=ripthekik]I posted one of your retarded posts up there.

My stance is clear, and I have posted it many times. I know banning guns is impossible in the U.S. at this point. There is no point talking about it. However, they need to start working on gun control now. Start slow, but START. Allowing anyone will go to Walmarts now to buy a gun simply isn't helping the situation.[/QUOTE]
That was my ****in point too.

Restricting guns so people like bmulls could still get them, but not casual individuals that wouldn't bother if paperwork and licensing was involved. I am sure bmulls supports the same idea.

[QUOTE=bmulls]We've already been through this. How does a nation benefit from alcohol? Does getting drunk merit the deaths of 15,000+ people every year?

You won't even answer that question, you'll :facepalm and call me an idiot and ride your high horse off into the distance.[/QUOTE]
Because that's the dumbest response that doesn't merit an answer. It really is a middle school response.

Comparing alcohol to firearms?

Ok, let's get to the basics. What are the basic functions of alcohol? It's a beverage. It's doesn't cause harm, death, or damage DIRECTLY for a start. It might be part of causes of death rates alright- drunk driving, involuntary manslaughter etc. But you forgot to use your own logic here.. shouldn't we look at RATES?

Every single day MILLIONS of people drink, at this moment now there are millions being drunk. What are the percentages of it leading to death? Probably 0.0000001.

What is the main function of a gun? To cause damage and harm.

Look at all the countries around the world who consumes alcohol. Is there a correlation with death rate? Not really. The rate is so low.. each night millions drink around the world and there is like 5 accidents in a town compared to thousands drunk that night? How could you say the death rate should merit alcohol being banned? More than 99.9999999999% of the time it's usage is safe.

Plus in deaths, alcohol is not a DIRECT cause. Drunk driving, driving is the direct cause. It is indirect, an only a FACTOR.

When guns are used to kill, they are the DIRECT cause of death. Enough?

[QUOTE=ripthekik]Because that's the dumbest response that doesn't merit an answer. It really is a middle school response.

Comparing alcohol to firearms?

Ok, let's get to the basics. What are the basic functions of alcohol? It's a beverage. It's doesn't cause harm, death, or damage DIRECTLY for a start. It might be part of causes of death rates alright- drunk driving, involuntary manslaughter etc. But you forgot to use your own logic here.. shouldn't we look at RATES?

Every single day MILLIONS of people drink, at this moment now there are millions being drunk. What are the percentages of it leading to death? Probably 0.0000001.

What is the main function of a gun? To cause damage and harm.

Look at all the countries around the world who consumes alcohol. Is there a correlation with death rate? Not really. The rate is so low.. each night millions drink around the world and there is like 5 accidents in a town compared to thousands drunk that night? How could you say the death rate should merit alcohol being banned? More than 99.9999999999% of the time it's usage is safe.

Plus in deaths, alcohol is not a DIRECT cause. Drunk driving, driving is the direct cause. It is indirect, an only a FACTOR.

When guns are used to kill, they are the DIRECT cause of death. Enough?[/QUOTE]

Strong mental gymnastics. A gun is a tool. A gun is designed to fire a projectile. Whether that projectile causes damage and harm is entirely up to the person pulling the trigger. As for the rest of your bullshit, I'll humor you so you can see how wrong you are:

A 2008 gallup poll estimates that 45% of households own at least 1 gun. The US Census reports that there were 112 million households in the US in 2008. Assuming only 1 person in each household owns a firearm (which is obviously not the case, many households will have multiple owners), there were 50.4 million gun owners in the US. The FBI reports approximately 9000 gun murders in the United States in 2008. This means that in 2008 around one tenth of one percent of gun owners used their guns to kill somebody.

So, literally 99.9% of the time gun usage is safe.

Edit: My math was wrong, it's actually 99.999%

At the end of the day a dead body is a dead body, and getting drunk is completely frivolous pursuit that results in the deaths of thousands of innocent people annually. You think the families of drunk driving victims care how "directly" their loved one was killed? No.

Now, I've just bitch slapped the shit out of your argument here using real hard stats backed up with legitimate sources, but you can keep telling me it's a middle school argument if it makes you feel better about your supposed intelligence.


[url]http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/hh-fam/table1n.txt[/url]
[url]http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx[/url]
[url]http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states[/url]

[QUOTE]literally 99.9% of the time gun usage is safe."[/QUOTE]
[B]There is no usage until the gun is fired.[/B] Just like alcohol is not used until it is consumed. Otherwise can I use the statistics for millions of tonnes of alcohol sitting around in factories? I think that threw your entire case of "legitimate sources" and statistics out the window.

Just stop :facepalm. I'm not really sure that you're serious in comparing alcohol with firearms either. The intention, function, rate, and direct/indirect cause, usage for other purposes, among with tons of other reasons, are just not the same. Alcohol can be enjoyed over dinner, bars, home, everywhere without causing harm. How much places can you shoot a gun? What is the main function of a gun? I'm sure you can figure it out.

And it's a lost cause trying to argue this. Everything other ISH posters and I have said has been said by thousands others. If it can't change your mind, nothing will. Not to mention changing your mind does nothing for the U.S. as well.

I'll leave with one final comment here. The same psycho in China couldn't get his hands on guns, so he used a knife and caused 0 deaths. That's all I have to say.

[QUOTE=boozehound]if anything, the high rate in mexico reinforces the importance of gun control. where did 90% of all the confiscated guns in MX come from? They were legally purchased in the US. The US gun laws have a direct impact on the presence and use of guns in mexico. That is a fact. Even the repubs have indirectly acknowledged this with their pursuit of too fast too furious.[/QUOTE]
This isn't true

[QUOTE=ripthekik][B]There is no usage until the gun is fired.[/B] Just like alcohol is not used until it is consumed. Otherwise can I use the statistics for millions of tonnes of alcohol sitting around in factories? I think that threw your entire case of "legitimate sources" and statistics out the window.

Just stop :facepalm. I'm not really sure that you're serious in comparing alcohol with firearms either. The intention, function, rate, and direct/indirect cause, usage for other purposes, among with tons of other reasons, are just not the same. Alcohol can be enjoyed over dinner, bars, home, everywhere without causing harm. How much places can you shoot a gun? What is the main function of a gun? I'm sure you can figure it out.

And it's a lost cause trying to argue this. Everything other ISH posters and I have said has been said by thousands others. If it can't change your mind, nothing will. Not to mention changing your mind does nothing for the U.S. as well.

I'll leave with one final comment here. The same psycho in China couldn't get his hands on guns, so he used a knife and caused 0 deaths. That's all I have to say.[/QUOTE]

:biggums:

What? Alcohol sitting in factories? The fck are you talking about?

Somebody please explain what ripthekik is trying to say and how it refutes my point.

[QUOTE=bmulls]:biggums:

What? Alcohol sitting in factories? The fck are you talking about?[/QUOTE]
You used the statistics to show how many families own guns, and how many used them. Many packaged alcohol that are still not sold are sitting there, and or in people's fridge.

So why don't you answer my last question for you:
[B]Guns aren't used until they are fired.[/B] What do your statistics tell you now? Everytime they are fired what do you think happens? Do you see the difference between usage of the gun and alcohol now? What happens most of the time when a man opens up a can of beer in his room? Where is the danger?

Would you give your 5 year old boy a gun in a room, or a can of alcohol?

[QUOTE=SourPatchKids]Iceland is probably the nicest place to live in the universe.[/QUOTE]

Iceland GOAT country :bowdown:

other countries have lower crime rates, healthier populous, comparably highly skilled and trained populous, and generally a happier populous. So, why is America lagging behind some of these nations in these areas and why is no attempt made to actually learn from said countries.

For example, prior to the economic collapse if America had banking regulations relatively comparable to that of Australia or Canada does the banking melt down occur???

If that could be the case then what about other areas where America lags behind like gun crime or health outcomes.

[QUOTE=ripthekik]You used the statistics to show how many families own guns, and how many used them. Many packaged alcohol that are still not sold are sitting there, and or in people's fridge.

So why don't you answer my last question for you:
[B]Guns aren't used until they are fired.[/B] What do your statistics tell you now? Everytime they are fired what do you think happens? Do you see the difference between usage of the gun and alcohol now? What happens most of the time when a man opens up a can of beer in his room? Where is the danger?

Would you give your 5 year old boy a gun in a room, or a can of alcohol?[/QUOTE]

I might be throwing a spanner in the works for you here, but you could argue that at least some of the time the simple possession or visual of a gun could be considered "use." To use a gun doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be fired.

But overall I think the statistics would still be in your favor.

[QUOTE=ripthekik]You used the statistics to show how many families own guns, and how many used them. Many packaged alcohol that are still not sold are sitting there, and or in people's fridge.

So why don't you answer my last question for you:
[B]Guns aren't used until they are fired.[/B] What do your statistics tell you now? Everytime they are fired what do you think happens? Do you see the difference between usage of the gun and alcohol now? What happens most of the time when a man opens up a can of beer in his room? Where is the danger?

Would you give your 5 year old boy a gun in a room, or a can of alcohol?[/QUOTE]

That has nothing to do with anything I posted and makes absolutely no sense.

Seriously :biggums:

You asked me how a hobby can merit 10,000 deaths every year. I countered that alcohol, another hobby, causes 15,000 deaths every year. You replied that 99.99999% of the time alcohol usage is safe, therefore we should not ban it. I showed you statistically that 99.999% of gun usage is safe.

[QUOTE=miller-time]I might be throwing a spanner in the works for you here, but you could argue that at least some of the time the simple possession or visual of a gun could be considered "use." To use a gun doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be fired.

But overall I think the statistics would still be in your favor.[/QUOTE]

:roll:

How are they in his favor?

50.4 million people own guns. 49.6 million of them will not kill anybody with them. Assuming each person uses their gun once per year, the statistics are still 99.999% of the time a gun is fired it is done safely.

Now if we are more realistic and assume on average (some more, some less) each person uses their gun 5-10 times per year, the statistics swing even more wildly in my favor. We're talking 99.999999999999999999% of the time a gun is fired, it is fired safely.

*Safely in this case means nobody is murdered. If you want to include injuries accidents, then we have to add in injuries caused by alcohol, and that would yet again swing things wildly in my favor.

[QUOTE=bmulls]That has nothing to do with anything I posted and makes absolutely no sense.

Seriously :biggums:

You asked me how a hobby can merit 10,000 deaths every year. I countered that alcohol, another hobby, causes 15,000 deaths every year. You replied that 99.99999% of the time alcohol usage is safe, therefore we should not ban it. I showed you statistically that 99.999% of gun usage is safe.[/QUOTE]
Ok, let's deal with statistics for a moment here. There are only 2 situations, so it'll be easy.

A) based on your statistics on how many home owners own guns, and how many were used per year, you said 99.9999% gun usage were safe.
In this case, the equivalent statistic for alcohol would be: looking at all the alcohol that sits around a home unconsumed (unused), which is nearly 100% in all families, and then comparing it finally to a number of death caused by alcohol. Good luck with that.

B) How about comparing them when they are finally used? Guns fired, alcohol consumed. What is the rate of fatality between them?

That question there, would you place a 5 year old boy in a room with a loaded gun, or a can of beer, should demonstrate the difference between them.

That is DIRECT/INDIRECT cause of danger. A gun can directly kill the boy. Alcohol? so what if the kid is drunk? What danger is he in?

If you still don't understand the difference between the 2 through this demonstration, then I am out of words. Consider your battle won.

[QUOTE=ripthekik]Ok, let's deal with statistics for a moment here. There are only 2 situations, so it'll be easy.

A) based on your statistics on how many home owners own guns, and how many were used per year, you said 99.9999% gun usage were safe.
In this case, the equivalent statistic for alcohol would be: looking at all the alcohol that sits around a home unconsumed (unused), which is nearly 100% in all families, and then comparing it finally to a number of death caused by alcohol. Good luck with that.

B) How about comparing them when they are finally used? Guns fired, alcohol consumed. What is the rate of fatality between them?

That question there, would you place a 5 year old boy in a room with a loaded gun, or a can of beer, should demonstrate the difference between them.

That is DIRECT/INDIRECT cause of danger. A gun can directly kill the boy. Alcohol? so what if the kid is drunk? What danger is he in?

If you still don't understand the difference between the 2 through this demonstration, then I am out of words. Consider your battle won.[/QUOTE]

That is not a logical argument.

I am talking about the overall death tolls caused by alcohol and guns annually.

What I would give a 5 year old has nothing to do with anything.

[QUOTE=bmulls]:roll:

How are they in his favor?

50.4 million people own guns. 49.6 million of them will not kill anybody with them. Assuming each person uses their gun once per year, the statistics are still 99.999% of the time a gun is fired it is done safely.

Now if we are more realistic and assume on average (some more, some less) each person uses their gun [B]5-10 times per year[/B], the statistics swing even more wildly in my favor. We're talking 99.999999999999999999% of the time a gun is fired, it is fired safely.[/QUOTE]

But people aren't drinking 5-10 times a year. The majority of drinkers (which I would hazard a guess and say the total is more than the number gun owners) are drinking weekly and daily. And yet with so much more prevlent alcohol use they are only raking up 5,000 more total deaths per year (based on the figures you gave).

If people consumed alcohol as much as they used their guns imagine how low the number would be. 5-10 drinking sessions a year for everyone and I'd conservatively claim you would slash the total deaths in half.

[QUOTE=bmulls]That is not a logical argument.

I am talking about the overall death tolls caused by alcohol and guns annually.

What I would give a 5 year old has nothing to do with anything.[/QUOTE]
You can't used overal death toll, because by your own argument, we need to look at rates! Alcohol usage rate is nearly about a million times more than guns in the country. Use rates: what is the rate of a death caused, everytime an alcohol beverage is consumed, compared with what is the death rate caused every time a gun is fired?

I'm using the example to show you the difference in indirect/direct danger. Do you finally see it now?

[QUOTE=miller-time]But people aren't drinking 5-10 times a year. The majority of drinkers (which I would hazard a guess and say the total is more than the number gun owners) are drinking weekly and daily. And yet with so much more prevlent alcohol use they are only raking up 5,000 more total deaths per year (based on the figures you gave).

If people consumed alcohol as much as they used their guns imagine how low the number would be. 5-10 drinking sessions a year for everyone and I'd conservatively claim you would slash the total deaths in half.[/QUOTE]

I don't care about the exact number of drinkers or drinks or gun shots fired. His point was 99.99999999% of alcohol use is safe, thus it shouldn't be banned. The same is true of firearm use, yet he thinks we should ban it.

[QUOTE=ripthekik]You can't used overal death toll, because by your own argument, we need to look at rates! Alcohol usage rate is nearly about a million times more than guns in the country. Use rates: what is the rate of a death caused, everytime an alcohol beverage is consumed, compared with what is the death rate caused every time a gun is fired?

I'm using the example to show you the difference in indirect/direct danger. Do you finally see it now?[/QUOTE]

Irresponsbile gun use kills people. Irresponsible alcohol use kills people. Irresponsible use accounts for tiny fractions of less than 1% in both cases.

Yet you think 1 should be banned and the other not. Do you finally see how your views don't make sense?

[QUOTE=bmulls]I don't care about the exact number of drinkers or drinks or gun shots fired. His point was 99.99999999% of alcohol use is safe, thus it shouldn't be banned. The same is true of firearm use, yet he thinks we should ban it.[/QUOTE]

Well I'm not sure of many alcohol related incidents that have caused the deaths of multiple teachers and students or movie goers.

Right now all you've shown yourself is that at a 1:1 comparison firearms are more dangerous than alcohol.

Additionally, these recent deaths aren't caused by "irresponsible" use. Once alcohol can be used by violent people to cause mass death then we might have more cause for alarm. Right now alcohol related deaths are only caused by irresponsibility.

[QUOTE=bmulls]Irresponsbile gun use kills people. Irresponsible alcohol use kills people. Irresponsible use accounts for tiny fractions of less than 1% in both cases.

Yet you think 1 should be banned and the other not. Do you finally see how your views don't make sense?[/QUOTE]

he has never said that it should be banned, restrictions like many other countries implement should be considered. The rest of the world is so far ahead of America on this issues and other crime related issues.

this argument is still going on? seriously?? :oldlol:
'
they are NOT equal. ok, let's say there is more death caused by alcohol per year than guns. Say 55000 alcohol to 50000 by guns.

55000 death caused by alcohol/ 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 cans of beer opened

50000 death caused by guns/ 9999999999 guns fired

think this is still a fair comparison? the stupidity, goddamn

you have more chances of winning the lottery than a death caused by alcohol. think about it. about a million cans of beer are being opened right now as I type this post. Do you think you can take the same chances with guns?

I check out these gun control threads to see what new analogies are in and what sort of refreshment is being compared to something that was invented to kill people easier.

[QUOTE=ripthekik]this argument is still going on? seriously?? :oldlol:
'
they are NOT equal. ok, let's say there is more death caused by alcohol per year than guns. Say 55000 alcohol to 50000 by guns.

55000 death caused by alcohol/ 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 cans of beer opened

50000 death caused by guns/ 9999999999 guns fired

think this is still a fair comparison? the stupidity, goddamn

you have more chances of winning the lottery than a death caused by alcohol. think about it. about a million cans of beer are being opened right now as I type this post. Do you think you can take the same chances with guns?[/QUOTE]

If he doesn't get it by now I give up even talking to him about this point. bmulls, it is time for you to move on to your next argument for guns, or restart one of your old ones, the one about how mass killings [U]only[/U] make up a small amount of total firearm deaths was a good one.

[QUOTE=miller-time]If he doesn't get it by now I give up even talking to him about this point. bmulls, it is time for you to move on to your next argument for guns, or restart one of your old ones, the one about how mass killings [U]only[/U] make up a small amount of total firearm deaths was a good one.[/QUOTE]
Thanks man, I agree, too much time wasted here. Was just going to rep back, but I'd given too much in the past 24 hours.

So with all the talk about Mexico, Russia and stats being skweded, can we all agree the USA is looking good in the gun related homocide department?


Good.

[QUOTE=dunksby]I check out these gun control threads to see what new analogies are in and what sort of refreshment is being compared to something that was invented to kill people easier.[/QUOTE]

Its amusing isn't it?

Shooting guns = drinking alcohol

:roll:

[QUOTE=ripthekik]this argument is still going on? seriously?? :oldlol:
'
they are NOT equal. ok, let's say there is more death caused by alcohol per year than guns. Say 55000 alcohol to 50000 by guns.

55000 death caused by alcohol/ 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 cans of beer opened

50000 death caused by guns/ 9999999999 guns fired

think this is still a fair comparison? the stupidity, goddamn

you have more chances of winning the lottery than a death caused by alcohol. think about it. about a million cans of beer are being opened right now as I type this post. Do you think you can take the same chances with guns?[/QUOTE]

So if you want to start counting beers opened, then we need to start counting bullets fired too right? I usually shoot around 1000 rounds of .22 at the range in a couple of hours, and I shoot around twice a month. Extrapolate that over 50 million people and we're looking at billions and billions of bullets fired. You get the point.

All you're doing is splitting hairs now. Trying to argue whether alcohol use is 99.999999% or 99.9999999999999999999999% safe is ridiculous. The bottom line is irresponsible gun use accounts for an incredibly tiny percentage of total gun use, same as alcohol.

At the end of the day thousands of people end up dead for "worthless" hobbies, yet you support one and not the other.

[QUOTE=GatorKid117]Its amusing isn't it?

Shooting guns = drinking alcohol

:roll:[/QUOTE]


Dead people = dead people

:roll: That's hilarious right?


...


:biggums:

[B][COLOR="Navy"]Best post in this thread j/k[/COLOR][/B]

[QUOTE=jaydacris]japan and south korea lead the world in sword/ninja star related deaths[/QUOTE]

[B][COLOR="DarkOrange"]I think the message is confused. No one is saying banning guns. Increase the restrictions of gun accessibility.

I wonder when people here will broach the economic portion of banning or restrictions....

The comparison of alcohol to guns is ludicrous and a stretch. Simply put one is a weapon of death/targeting the other is a beverage thirst quenching. A gun being used and a beverage being used is incomparable. The beverage has a longer daisy chain of mitigating circumstances to cause death.

I would love to hear how the ecomomics of gun restriction/banning?[/COLOR][/B]

[QUOTE=bmulls]Dead people = dead people

:roll: That's hilarious right?


...


:biggums:[/QUOTE]

Your a sick individual, man. Laughing about dead people. You should stick to terrible analogies. At least we can laugh at you.

it's gonna require more than just prohibition to solve the problem. the problem is the culture of violence that's already endemic.

and honestly despite the tragedy that just occurred, I doubt there will be substantive effort towards tighter gun control. The idea of right to firearm is so steeped into the american culture that anything contrary will meet no just opposition from special interest but popular outrage.

People also take what they want to see from tragedies like Sandy hook. I know many people are talking about "arming" school staffs as a response.