Alcohol vs. Gun deaths

[NoLimePlease]

I've been doing some reading on Brown's new "gun control". Made me start wondering about all the deaths from alcohol. I found some pretty interesting numbers that I thought I would share.

Why is there such a push for "gun control" when alcohol deaths outnumber firearm deaths 4 to 1?

Why no push to ban "assault" alcohol?

Preventable medical errors in hospitals: 210,000 to 448,000 23.1%
Smoking tobacco: 435,000 18.1%
Being overweight and obesity: 111,909 4.6%
Alcohol: 85,000 3.5%
Infectious diseases: 75,000 3.1%
Toxic agents including toxins, particulates and radon: 55,000 2.3%
Traffic collisions: 43,000 1.8%
Preventable colorectal cancers: 41,400 1.7%
Firearms deaths; 31,940 1.3% (Suicide: 19,766; homicide: 11,101; Accidents: 852; Unknown: 822)
Sexually transmitted infections: 20,000 0.8%
Drug abuse: 17,000 0.7%

These numbers are directly referenced from the CDC. I have looked in other places and found very similar numbers.

Read More

 

[Kruel J]

Interesting facts. And good question! BUT, unless an accident is involved generally speaking alcohol only kills the consumer.

 

[tiggers97]

I have to dig up my data when I was looking at this very question for Oregon in 2015.

It is something like 2.5 times more DUI deaths vs gun homicides. And more (don't remember how much more) alcohol related deaths than all gun related deaths. I believe the year was 2013.

Here's a link to Oregon Health Authority data (volume 2). It isn't quite consistent, but under year you can find fairly detailed charts and reports on various aspects. Including death when someone uses a firearm.
Volume 2 (https://public.health.oregon.gov/BirthDeathCertificates/VitalStatistics/annualreports/Volume2/Pages/index.aspx)

Edit: in 2014, there were a total of TWO homicides via rifles... 2 out of 53, or 3.8% of all homicides. It might take a little work, but might be useful to at least look at the totals for 2010-2014 that Brown used in her justifications.

https://public.health.oregon.gov/Bi...alreports/Volume2/Documents/2014/table634.pdf


Note: if you have trouble pulling data with <10 incidents in a year/state using the WISQUARS (or WONDER) systems at the CDC, there is a work around for it if you run into that problem.

 

[Member 3687]

Thank you for the data as I am a bit of a numbers guy so I actually enjoy looking at that type of stuff up myself.

The problem is you and I will look at the data and make the assumption that in the scheme of things guns are far less dangerous compared to all most everything else in the world but they do not care they have an agenda to ban all guns over several generations.

It has never been about saving or protecting lives its and agenda.

But with these facts maybe the folks on the fence that scan theses forums on the side lines might be swayed to our side.

One never knows.

 

[Oregon Rob]

I did that same research a while back and came to the same conclusions. The interesting thing to me is no one's calling for the ban on alcohol or hard alcohol. I know the only reason for that is most legislators drink... very hypocritical which is a pretty human trait.

 

[wired]

A ban on firearms will have the same positive results for society and overall compliance that the ban on alcohol did.

 

[tiggers97]

What I've seen from the gun control side is that they take just a little bit of fact, and a lot of extrapolation and insinuation to reach conclusion. Then package it into a twitter length quote and sell that to the masses. No questions asked. And they have been fairly successful at it.

for example: during SB941 I asked one mom if she wanted background checks so we would be as safe as those other state with background checks all the stats from Everytown was showing. For example: "States with background checks for all handguns have 48% fewer officers killed". But when we look at Oregon; "Oregon has 49% fewer officers killed with firearms than in states with background checks". And Everytowns OWN DATA AND "FACT" SHEET SHOWS IT. A 'report' that I beat 99% of moms don't even know exist. She had no idea and didn't believe me.

I'm thinking we need to do the same thing (minus the deceptive extrapolation and insinuations). I.e. come up with a few facts that can be neatly packaged and delivered in twitter length sound bites. No more than 10 or so. Then repeat, repeat, repeat. About 25% 'numbers', about 75% emotion. Unfortunately, I don't see at this point a good way to reach and educate the masses with little time/interest/knowledge.

Delivery is also important. Biggest problem with the 'boy friend loophole'? Due process. So pro 2nd amendment types say "I cannot support this because of a lack of due process". Which gets reported as "they said no, period" and "those extremists want domestic violence abusers to have guns to shoot people with!".

 

[tiggers97]

A ban on firearms will have the same positive results for society and overall compliance that the ban on alcohol did.

During Kates news broadcast, the fire and brimestone clergy that wants to start a gun ban ballot measure reminds me a lot of the types who pushed for prohibition. Empty promises of tranquility and all.

 

[The Heretic]

Interesting facts. And good question! BUT, unless an accident is involved generally speaking alcohol only kills the consumer.

And suicides - the vast majority of firearm deaths - mostly only kill the person committing suicide and not others. The assertion being that a person (and adult at least) has the right to do with their life as they see fit - as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

I.E., if they want to drink/shoot/smoke themselves to death then that is their decision and no one else has the right to prevent them from doing so. The manner of death in these cases is therefore not relevant to whether the instrument of that death should be regulated.

A more relevant comparison therefore would be how many innocent bystanders die due to the use of alcohol vs. firearms? Or any other cause of death where a person has a choice regarding the use of some inanimate object or substance - alcohol, drugs, firearms, etc.?

 

[308]

During Kates news broadcast, the fire and brimestone clergy that wants to start a gun ban ballot measure reminds me a lot of the types who pushed for prohibition. Empty promises of tranquility and all.

I am Christian in the classic definition of the word, and it irritates me to no end when I hear about some 'man of the cloth' or whatever who seeks worldly solutions to what is clearly a spiritual issue in the heart of the criminal, and to be quit honestly, in all of our hearts. Maybe these clergy should be preaching Christ's message instead.

 

[Hawaiian]

But Alcohol use is not a right protected by the Constitution.

 

[wired]

Delivery is also important. Biggest problem with the 'boy friend loophole'? Due process. So pro 2nd amendment types say "I cannot support this because of a lack of due process". Which gets reported as "they said no, period" and "those extremists want domestic violence abusers to have guns to shoot people with!".

Due process is whatever the legislatures and courts say it is. That is not a roadblock to anything.

As far as the voting based on facts? When has that ever happened? Statistics are routinely used to push agendas where the facts are cooked however the statistician wants them to appear.

 

[The Heretic]

But Alcohol use is not a right protected by the Constitution.

You are probably being sarcastic, but I would point out that the Constitution enumerates *some* of our rights, not all, among others - which was somewhat understood at the time of its writing, less so now, because few people take the time to try to understand it, or the documents and history behind it - one of which was the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

 

[Hawaiian]

OK, I agree, the "Pursuit of Happiness" covers alcohol.

 

[RicInOR]

I did that same research a while back and came to the same conclusions. The interesting thing to me is no one's calling for the ban on alcohol or hard alcohol. I know the only reason for that is most legislators drink... very hypocritical which is a pretty human trait.

We tried that once. Led to a massive increase in gun violence. That didn't turn out so well.

full disclosure, my grandfather was a rum-runner in Chicago-land - 20's - 30's.
my grandmother would process - pouring the alcohol from large containers into bottles - in the bath tub of their home.

 

[NoLimePlease]

You are probably being sarcastic

I don't think there's sarcasm as deep as you would think. The constitution protects our rights in that certain way by abstaining from the individual judgement of those who choose to use alcohol in the idea that we have the power to make our own decisions.

 

[NoLimePlease]

As to such, firearm ownership would not just be a right PROTECTED by our constitution, yet simply a given human right as a means to defend our own interests.

 

[PaulB47]

I don't like consequentialist arguments.

Consequentialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism)

To me it is irrelevant what policy produces fewer dead people (even assuming one can honestly determine this number, which is quite a stretch). I prefer liberty even if it is more dangerous than slavery. I have no desire to control other people, or to see them controlled by some all-powerful state. If some people are evil, they will come to their end soon enough.