Guns and Alcohol: Gun Owners Drink More and Take More Risks

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Dog is good eating! Evidently, RUB folks are not as bright as most of the world's population in not letting a protein source go to waste.

Funny you mention that. In discussing this problem, and itis a problem, with Ukrainians the overwhelming thought was that "After the Second War...there were no dogs. Things must be good if the dogs are still around" Sounds like survival food on the hoof, so to speak.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Say Gary, how safe would you think Pakistan is? I mean they have very liberal laws around the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Much less restrictive than anywhere in the US - yes, even less restrictive than Vermont. So that means that it must be the safest place on earth with an unequaled feeling of freedom. Do you believe that it is?

Sure. If it isn't you can tell me the reason it is not as safe as Vermont. OK?

Then tell us how gun laws will fix the differences.

I await your detailed response.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

They have stray dogs all over Bangkok. They call them Soi dogs (Soi means small street in Thai.) They just lay there all day on the sidewalk waiting for handouts. Never seen one of them get mean, although I'm sure it happens.

The dogs in Ukrainian cities lay around during the day, all over the place. They don't seem to bother anyone.

At night they get in their packs and just roam around, fight with other dogs and frequently enough people are bitten by them. The circumstances of such bitings I am not privy to, suffice to say there are also plenty of drunk people wandering around. Packs of dogs acted in a threatening manner to me many times while walking at night, but never attacked, I just went well around them. I never had a person act threatening to me, though a couple beggars got a little aggressive. Didn't work.

Suffice to say I would consider myself in more danger from animals in Donetsk, Kiev, or Odessa than in Vermont where we have (black)bears and lions.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Iv'e heard some nightmarish stories about the packs of dogs that run around in Russia and Ukraine. I know that right before last summers Euro Cup in Ukraine that the government spent some money ridding a few cities of those dog packs.

Evidently RUB's are much too busy wearing shoes than to learn about nutritional value of eating dog meat.

I was there before the Euro cup in Donetsk and saw plenty of dogs but did not take a census. Donetsk was one of the venues for Euro Cup 2012. They built a new stadium but let the dogs take over the place. If they eliminated the dogs, or tried, they missed a ot of them

They raom around at night and destroy all the trash cans and the entire city is trashed out from them every morning. The "babushka brigades" come out every morning with their brooms made from twigs and clean up the mess, put it back in the cans and the dogs take it all out the next night. Its crazy!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

When do guns and booze mix? Fishing and hunting trips for starters. And if you don't shoot at least one road sign on your way to your favorite fishing spot then you failed.

I grwew up on a ranch and the men would go out to the bunkhouses when we went hunting. There was NO booze allowed. NONE, ever. We would go out for 2-3 days and no alcohol was allowed. Period. And my father was one to have a glass of bourbon every night (though I never saw him drunk) and so did my Grandfather but not when hunting or around guns.

I never shot a road sign either.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

that's one example that came to my mind.

Bad example. Why would I use a handgun, open or concealed, to defend myself from a bear when I have a M70 Winchester Safari Grade in .375 H&H?

For purposes of self defense, concealed carry is far more effective overall.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sure.

Okay, so Pakistan is as safe as Vermont. And the color of the sky in your world would be?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Hate to break it to you Gary, but carrying a gun doesn't equal freedom. Let me educate you since your knowledge range doesn't extend past your paradise:

See, in the bad areas of St. Louis, or any other city with a high crime rate, people carry guns. even though they are not supposed to. Folks that live there have them to protect themselves from the wolves, but even with a gun you're safety isn't guaranteed. Because there, people aren't afraid to try you, they will take that gun you hold so dear to you and shoot you with it, or they will shoot you first. Folks that live in those neighborhoods are poor, they can barely afford food, do you think permitting everyone to carry a gun would solve that? If your logic had any merit, then every city in America would be 100% conceal and carry. All you would succeed in doing is adding more bloodshed to an already nasty situation.

I feel safe in the places I go without a gun, if I need to go to the bad part of town, I go during the day and not at night. I don't seek out trouble just so I can use a gun to get out of it. I just got back from East Saint Louis, now that place is crazy, but had no issues. I did what I had to do and left, no fuss or muss. It might not be as awesome as your precious Vermont, but we have good people there and I am proud to say I was raised by my mother in the city of St. Louis.

That's very interesting, +1 for you!

Please, educate me on WHY it is NOT like that in Vermont. And you KNOW it isn't. So explain the DIFFERENCE(S) between Vermont, where anyone CAN carry guns (legally), vs. St. Louis.

Then explain to be how you would correct those differences with gun laws.

I appreciate your educating me and would like to learn more from you. This is SO interesting.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Okay, so Pakistan is as safe as Vermont. And the color of the sky in your world would be?

I am so suprised that you did not detail a response. It is not like you at all. I was sure that you were going to tell me why it is different in Pakistan and how a gun law would fix it. Probably post osme links or such. No?

Guess I have to wait for Marvin to educate me. +1 anyway.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am so suprised that you did not detail a response.

It seems to me that you are not looking to engage in a detailed debate seeing that you are trying to tell me that you believe that Pakistan is as safe for its residents as Vermont. I need to ascertain whether you honestly believe that. If you do, there is no point in engaging in a debate with you. If you don't, then why don't you start the debate by telling me how it is possible that a place with a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms and no accompanying regulations around that right happens to be less safe than any place in the US? It is you that is making the claim that all it takes for people to be safe is for people to be armed.

Pakistanis are armed. But they're not safe. Somalis are armed. They're not safe either. How come?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

It seems to me that you are not looking to engage in a detailed debate seeing that you are trying to tell me that you believe that Pakistan is as safe for its residents as Vermont. I need to ascertain whether you honestly believe that. If you do, there is no point in engaging in a debate with you. If you don't, then why don't you start the debate by telling me how it is possible that a place with a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms and no accompanying regulations around that right happens to be less safe than any place in the US? It is you that is making the claim that all it takes for people to be safe is for people to be armed.

Pakistanis are armed. But they're not safe. Somalis are armed. They're not safe either. How come?

But yet Finland is heavily armed and they have very low crime rates compared to Pakistan, so Gee Hot Rod. Must be some other dynamic going on.

Thanks for proving our point.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But yet Finland is heavily armed and they have very low crime rates compared to Pakistan, so Gee Hot Rod. Must be some other dynamic going on.

Thanks for proving our point.

Define "heavily armed". The US is heavily armed (now appr. a gun per person). No other country is. Finland has a third the rate of arms per capita as the US. About the same as the rest of Western Europe and Canada.

With that, I gotta ask: Proving whose point? Gary's? Gary keeps telling us that more guns translate into more safety. Are you saying that other factors are actually determining whether or not a place is safe? I mean they have more guns in Yemen than Finland and yet I doubt we're going to claim with a straight face that Yemen is safer than Finland.

So yeah, Gee Hot Rod, seems to me that rather than me proving someone else's point, you are actually not only questioning Gary's theory but blowing a big fat hole into it.

To summarize: More guns ≠ More safety.

[himher 634]

You're kidding right? Because that's exactly what happens. Hell that happens if you get caught hunting out of season (the guns along with the truck and everything else you have with you)

Exactly. Why would anyone have a problem with taking away someone's gun when they decide to be stupid by carrying it while intoxicated? This is a no brainer. Punish the criminals and take away their guns.

[himher 634]

"Heavily armed" is subjective and not worth discussion

Can it be stipulated then that:

More good people with guns than bad people with guns = more safety. Our beloved Vermont would example this

More bad people with guns than good people with guns = less safety. Yemen would example this

SO: Is it really the guns or is it really the type of people that we accept and allow to walk our streets?

Define "heavily armed". The US is heavily armed (now appr. a gun per person). No other country is. Finland has a third the rate of arms per capita as the US. About the same as the rest of Western Europe and Canada.

With that, I gotta ask: Proving whose point? Gary's? Gary keeps telling us that more guns translate into more safety. Are you saying that other factors are actually determining whether or not a place is safe? I mean they have more guns in Yemen than Finland and yet I doubt we're going to claim with a straight face that Yemen is safer than Finland.

So yeah, Gee Hot Rod, seems to me that rather than me proving someone else's point, you are actually not only questioning Gary's theory but blowing a big fat hole into it.

To summarize: More guns ≠ More safety.

Edited January 4, 2013 by himher

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

"Heavily armed" is subjective and not worth discussion

Can it be stipulated then that:

More good people with guns than bad people with guns = more safety. Our beloved Vermont would example this

More bad people with guns than good people with guns = less safety. Yemen would example this

SO: Is it really the guns or is it really the type of people that we accept and allow to walk our streets?

and the winner is ^^^^^^^^^^

he will say Define type of people now...... bet on it