Philly dot com
Set aside politics and posturing about gun violence in America and there is still one indisputable fact: Alcohol use plays a primary role in gun violence.
A startling 48 percent of homicide offenders were reportedly under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offense, and 37 percent were intoxicated, according to an analysis by University of North Carolina researchers who reviewed more than 23 independent studies examining 8,265 homicide offenders in nine countries.
In the United States, guns are the leading cause of homicide and suicide.
"Both acute alcohol intoxication and chronic alcohol misuse are strongly associated with risk for committing firearm violence, whether that violence is directed at others or at oneself," said Garen J. Wintemute, founding director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis.
He added that of the nearly 400,000 firearm-related U.S. deaths in 12 years, "it is probable that more than a third of these deaths involve alcohol."
"On the contrary, denying alcohol abusers access to firearms makes perfect sense. But it does point to another solution: the expansion of proven alcohol treatments, the kind that help alcohol abusers reclaim their self-respect and lives while reducing the risk of gun violence."
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall us talking about this earlier. According to the author, about 45% of those with alcohol abuse problems are being treated. So if we require those seeking treatment to surrender their civil rights to get such treatment, will that percentage go up? or down?
I'm guessing that the high percentage for alcohol treatment is a result in the removal of the stigma associated in receiving treatment.
Well, as we remove the stigma we need to also remove the guns.
DeleteThose are mutually exclusive. As we discussed on another thread, if you confiscate people's guns when they check into an alcohol treatment facility you'll have fewer people checking into alcohol treatment facilities.
Delete"Well, as we remove the stigma we need to also remove the guns."
DeleteGood luck selling that. But it might be a challenge to package the loss of rights because you sought treatment as a good thing.
"you'll have fewer people checking into alcohol treatment facilities."
DeleteAnd as I said before, we'll deal with them as they continue to break laws. Od course, we're assuming my one strike you're out policy goes into effect. Dropped guns, driving drunk, negligent discharges, and the rest all result in the loss of gun rights. The world would be a better place because those who continue to retain their rights will be better fit, on the whole.
"And as I said before, we'll deal with them as they continue to break laws."
DeleteThat's what we are doing right now. Punish those who break the law. Most on the gun control side however don't seem satisfied with that though and instead want to restrict the rights of those who MIGHT break the law. An important distinction and one that most understand for what it is.
I wouldn't be surprised if you might even get a state or two to give it a try, though I hope not since it sets a bad precedent that will affect those who want to seek help for addiction.
And of course, it would only apply to treatment programs that are licensed. Would sort of bring a whole new meaning to the anonymous in in the group AA. Though I imagine it could be billed as a "loophole"
[Of] course, we're assuming my one strike you're out policy goes into effect.
DeleteWhy would we "assume" anything so idiotic as that? That savage policy will never, ever go into effect, and thus countless lives may very well be saved, as the need for civil war is obviated.
But... fewer people are getting treated for alcohol abuse. All you give a crap about is disarming people. You don't care about them getting healthy. That's clear with what you are saying here.
DeleteMike, do you know anyone who works in the substance treatment field? Have you ever run your ideas by them?
DeleteHey, do you know what would be cool? If we passed a law that says treatment facilities must report the names and social security numbers of their patients to the government, and then the government can start denying rights to them. Don't you think that would make the world a better place?
See what they say?
When you start talking about your ideas about guns and mental health you'll find you'll have a lot more opposition than just the gun rights advocates.
"want to restrict the rights of those who MIGHT break the law"
DeleteWhere do you get that? I want to implement a strict one strike you're out policy which has the weight of law behind it. I don't want to restrict people who might do something wrong in the future. I want to remove the guns of all who misuse them, intending that we change our definitions of what constitutes misuse.
"All you give a crap about is disarming people. You don't care about them getting healthy."
DeleteBy disarming all who misuse guns, we would be keeping lots of people healthy who otherwise are ending up dead. Your idea of freedom and rights is a travesty.
"then the government can start denying rights to them"
DeleteThat was pretty slick, TS. I'm talking about ONE particular right, not "denying rights" as if we'd go much further than the guns.
And to answer your question, of course treatment centers would oppose such a thing, not because it's a bad idea but simply because it would be bad for business. You see, they're the ones who don't give a fuck about what's best for people, like you. They for their bottom line, you for your sick idea of freedom and personal convenience.
DeleteMikeB: “I don’t want to restrict people who might do something wrong in the future.”
DeleteWow, Mike. Usually (though not always) I have to go outside of the thread to find gotchas. Isn’t your whole point in this thread that you want to remove the guns from alcohol abusers because they are more likely to do something wrong with them in the future, regardless of whether or not they have actually misused guns? It sounds like you want everyone who checks into an alcohol treatment facility to be disarmed- possibly for life. Is that not the case? Say someone voluntarily checks themselves into rehab because they recognize they have a problem. They have no DUIs, no convictions, no arrests, and no misuse of guns (even by your sick definition of “misuse”). Do they get to keep their gun rights? Or do you want to restrict them because of what they might do?
Do I need to remind you that you have also taken the same stance towards mental health treatment, and specifically depression? There are depressed people who haven’t broken the law, who haven’t done anything wrong, but you have called for restricting their rights on the very slim chance (~0.1%) that they might commit suicide.
Plus you perpetually call for may-issue policy on both carry and gun ownership, where an officer has full discretion to deny rights based on what an applicant might do, again regardless of their actual record.
MikeB: “By disarming all who misuse guns, we would be keeping lots of people healthy who otherwise are ending up dead.”
DeleteBut it is not just those who misuse guns. You’ve clearly stated on numerous occasions that those who misuse cars should be disarmed (though they get to keep their cars). Plus your definition of “healthy” appears to only mean not being shot. What about all the other negative health effects from alcohol that don’t involve guns at all? Alcohol poisoning, liver damage, brain damage, vehicular homicide, date rape, assault, etc...? You acknowledged that some people will avoid treatment as a result of your policies, and that you would “wait” for them to do something bad to disarm them. What if that event that you waited for ends up being a drunk driving fatality?
And don’t think it will just be current gun owners who get scared away from treatment. There are also those who might consider owning a gun in the future who don’t want to close the door on that possibility, and those who don’t have any interest in guns (maybe even hate guns) but still don’t want to end up on a government watch list. Maybe they don’t completely trust your promise that it would only be used for “ONE particular right” and that it wouldn’t “go much further than the guns” (notice how you qualified it as not going much further, implying that there is room to go a little bit further than the guns). Maybe they trust the government implicitly that it is only about the guns, but still don’t like the idea of their home being searched for guns because then the police will find that dime bag of pot, or their extensive porn collection, or they just plain don’t want the police going through their stuff regardless of anything illegal or embarrassing they might own. Remember, the government doesn’t know who owns guns and who doesn’t, and even if you got your dream of licensing, there will still be mass non-compliance (and those are the ones you really need to worry about, right?). It is not just the gun owners who will be affected by your statist ideas.
MikeB: “They for their bottom line, you for your sick idea of freedom and personal convenience”
Ah, we gain some more insight into your statist mind. Only The State can help you, and they will “help” you by restricting you for your own good and those around you. Private enterprise only cares about taking your money (despite the fact that many rehab programs are non-profit). You’re quite the cynic. With your negative attitude towards treatment, again, why should anyone seek treatment when all it is going to do is get them put on a government list, disarmed, and out a bunch of money from those blood sucking capitalists?
" you want to remove the guns from alcohol abusers because they are more likely to do something wrong with them in the future"
DeleteYou could look at it that way if you were desperate for a gotcha. Or, you could be honest and recognize that I consider it "wrong" to mix alcohol and guns now in the present.
"You could look at it that way if you were desperate for a gotcha."
DeleteMike, I seem to recall that part of your dream requirements for permission to own a firearm is a medical records check for just such indicators as various forms of treatment for psychological issues, even if they are being successfully treated, they would be disqualifiers.
And we have even seen examples recently care of the poorly written NY SAFE Act, where someone had his firearms confiscated due to what is said to be a clerical error.
And of course, once that error was discovered, the powers that be in a wonderful display of "reasonableness", refused to return them citing there was no provision in the poorly written law to do so.
And what about the depression cases? Is it "wrong" to mix sadness with guns in the first place, so they'll be punished accordingly?
DeleteSlick. Call clinical depression, which is a serious mental illness, sadness.
DeleteYes, mental illness cannot be mixed with guns any more than alcohol or drug use can.
Ok, so you do want to disarm people for what they might do in the future, and you are going to have to retract this statement:
DeleteMikeB: "I don't want to restrict people who might do something wrong in the future."
There is no wrong committed by slipping into depression. There is no exact moment that you can point to as well. Clearly this scheme of yours falls into the category of "preventative gun control" based on the 0.1% chance that depressed person commits suicide.
Yes, mental illness cannot be mixed with guns any more than alcohol or drug use can.
DeleteIn other words, TS, he wants to provide a powerful disincentive for seeking treatment not only for alcoholism, but for all mental illness.
"so you do want to disarm people for what they might do in the future"
DeleteYou're doing that pretending thing again in order to make this too tedious to continue. It's WRONG to mix guns with mental illness. It's wrong in the present. By disarming such people whatever future problems are obviated is a bonus but those future potential problems are not the reason for disarming them.
Once again we see that you have different meanings for words than the rest of the English speaking people. I swear a language professor could teach a whole four year curriculum on it- if they could ever figure out the oscillating definition patterns. Look Mike, why do you want to disarm depressed people? It's for suicide prevention, right? If they haven't committed suicide yet, then they haven't done the wrong. You want to disarm them to prevent them from doing the wrong. Preventative. There is no two ways around it (for traditional English speakers, that is). You don't inherently look at depression and say it is wrong to own guns. You say it is wrong only because of what it might lead to.
DeleteAdditionally, you've expressly used the word "misuse" when talking about whom you'd like to disarm. Where is the misuse in these cases? Where is the evidence of just "use"? I'm sure you will now alter the definition of "use" to mean "own" regardless of wether or not the gun was used or misused because that's the way MikeBspeak works.
I recall you and your gun loons saying there is nothing wrong with mixing guns and alcohol, but you will deny that, even though it's in print on this blo0g.
DeleteI guess you have a point, TS. I hate getting bogged down on these gotcha points. Fine, some of the effort is about prevention. I can live with that. If I said otherwise I was wrong. Fair enough.
DeleteI think it may even be more.
ReplyDeleteFor awhile a few years ago was asking when appropriate officers of the calls they went on what percentage involved alcohol and without hesitation it was around 90%.
Guns - booze - religion the three things tearing this country apart.
Borders on insanity it really does. How can any citizen be proud of this.
How about "dangerous and lawful beer drinkers" as a tag?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, if we had "proper alcohol control" akin to your idea of "proper gun control" would that also work to reduce deaths since half the "gun deaths" involved alcohol? Plus there is all the deaths involving alcohol that don't involve guns, which is even more numerous. Of course you're still going to want your gun control too- what I'm asking is do you want the same for alcohol as well? If not, why? You're not even a drinker yourself.
No, I think alcohol should be legal and available to adults, and we should add drugs to that as well. It's guns that need to be controlled (removed).
DeleteIt's guns that need to be controlled (removed).
DeleteSo you now acknowledge that to your way of thinking, "gun control"=gun removal?
Care to explain your bias?
DeleteAlcohol does more harm than good. You can't possibly disagree with that statement, right? Yet how many times have we heard this from you as the reason we must restrict guns more than they already are? Is it about saving lives, or grinding your political axe? It seems pretty heartless of you to allow all those people to die for the precious freedom to get drunk and high. How many times have we heard an accusation like that from you?
DeleteTS, are you really comparing guns to alcohol?
DeleteKurt, gun control does indeed equal gun removal in many cases. Did you really need to ask?
TS, are you really comparing guns to alcohol?
DeleteThe same federal agency regulates both.
Kurt, gun control does indeed equal gun removal in many cases. Did you really need to ask?
At some point, it could be useful to have you on record as having said that "controlling" guns means removing them.
Why not? Alcohol is far more deadly. You just said half the gun deaths are alcohol related, and half the car deaths are alcohol related. Plus then you have the alcohol related health deaths, other accidents, domestic violence, rape, etc...
DeleteWhat's the deal? Do you think you ideas of "proper gun control" wouldn't work when applied to alcohol? Abusers would still find a way to get booze?
"At some point, it could be useful to have you on record as having said that "controlling" guns means removing them."
DeleteWell, I'm sure we can count on you to save it for a rainy day when quoting it out of context will make for a juicy gotcha.
Well, I'm sure we can count on you to save it for a rainy day when quoting it out of context will make for a juicy gotcha.
DeleteWhat we can count on is a lot of whining and sniveling on your part about "context," with precisely zero explanation of how your "context" talisman is saving you from your own self-contradictions. As always.
That's always good for a chuckle.
In the United States, guns are the leading cause of homicide and suicide.
ReplyDeleteBullshit. Guns don't "cause" homicide and suicide any more than plows "cause" agriculture, or hammers "cause" carpentry.
Agreed. It's poor wording, and in typical form, you focus on that rather than the obvious intent of the writer.
DeleteIt's poor wording, and in typical form, you focus on that rather than the obvious intent of the writer.
DeleteYou wanna talk about "the obvious intent of the writer"? Fine. I think the writer obviously wants to blame guns for "gun violence" (and I'm guessing that this twit is among those who count suicide by gunshot as "gun violence"), rather than the people who commit that violence.
Happy now?
No. The whole "they're blaming the gun" thing is bullshit. And you know it. All of us know the gun is an inanimate object. This is just another example of your pretending to musunderstand the obvious intent.
DeleteThe whole "they're blaming the gun" thing is bullshit.
DeleteI disagree. Of course.
Alcohol is the problem but Big Pharma is not?
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers