At least 50 dead, 400 injured in shooting near Mandalay Bay casino, 1 suspect 'down'

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Many folks here are saying the 2nd Amendment must be scrapped.  What comes next?

 

Watching Fox news again? LOL.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Many folks here are saying the 2nd Amendment must be scrapped.  What comes next?

I did not read that. I posted an article in this thread that highlighted where experts and voters agree we can reform the system...what items in that list can you agree on?

[bcking 3,157]

29 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Alcohol kills over 88k people a year according to the CDC, guns kill about 10 Times less.  Which one should be banned?

Spoken like someone who has not actually looked at the CDC data on the issue, nor understands the statistics.

Edited October 3, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,800]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Spoken like someone who has not actually looked at the CDC data on the issue, nor understands the statistics.

What’s to be disputed?  So 88k preventable deaths if we ban alcohol.  Almost 10k from drinking and driving.  Was the CDC wrong?

[bcking 3,157]

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

What’s to be disputed?  So 88k preventable deaths if we ban alcohol.  Almost 10k from drinking and driving.  Was the CDC wrong?

I will try to explain some of the data from a source that you originally quoted, but still don't seem to understand (and likely haven't read).

 

The short version - You can't compare those two numbers. Both are huge issues, but saying "Alcohol kills X and guns kill WAY less" is, pardon the use of an overly common phrase (but it is quite apt here), like comparing apples to oranges. You can use the CDC data to highlight both has problems that need solutions, you can't use their data to compare them and say we should ignore one in favour of the other.

 

The long version -

 

I'll tackle gun statistics first. It is pretty simple to understand. It is calculated by adding up people who are killed by a firearm. It is easy, because a firearm is directly involved in the death. Their cause of death, in the vast majority of situations, is the gun shot wound. Cause and effect are simple.

 

The problem is alcohol is not straightforward. The number you have chosen to quote by stating "Alcohol kills 88,000" comes from studies of alcohol-attributable deaths. That number includes things that can be considered "one hundred percent dependent on alcohol", which are included on a 1 to 1 basis. However, it also includes diseases and deaths that are "partially dependent on alcohol". In those cases, they then try to estimate what percentage of the death is due to alcohol (which if it sounds like somewhat wishy washy to you, that is because it is) and use that to adjust the numbers. Cirrhosis, utilizing pathology, can be fairly accurately contributed to alcohol exclusively in some cases. Very few other diseases are quite tightly linked. So it ends up being an amalgam of health conditions that alcohol is related to. Saying "Alcohol killed that person with hypertension" is a bit far fetched, and very different from saying "That person died of his gun shot wound". 

 

The statistics also include, as you point out, drinking and driving as well as a number of other "acute causes". Alcohol on its own does not kill someone in a motor vehicle accident. Alcohol plus a motor vehicle does. It has a shared responsibility. The statistics for gun deaths don't suffer from the same inflation of their data.

 

 

TL;DR - Alcohol CONTRIBUTES to X number of deaths, Guns CAUSE Y number of deaths. You can't compare those two things because when you start adding up everything that alcohol contributes to of course it will be a much larger number. It is a mind altering substance. It isn't a tool that is directly used to kill (well, rarely).

 

Edit:

For additional reading -

https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/Info/Methods.aspx

They list those conditions that they consider 100% due to alcohol:

"alcoholic psychosis, alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence syndrome, alcohol polyneuropathy, degeneration of the nervous system due to alcohol use, alcoholic myopathy, alcohol cardiomyopathy, alcoholic gastritis, alcoholic liver disease, fetal alcohol syndrome, fetus and newborn affected by maternal use of alcohol, alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis. Three acute causes of death are 100% alcohol-attributable: alcohol poisoning, excessive blood alcohol level, and suicide by and exposure to alcohol."

 

Every other condition is a partial, that they then "estimate" contribution for. I'll also say "Fetus and newborn affected by maternal use of alcohol" is a fairly vague statement, and sounds a lot like an ICD-9/ICD-10 code to me. They are horrible are actually correctly categorizing patients, and should not be used to determine cause of death.

 

They also list things like alcohol polyneuropathy which, to my knowledge, doesn't solely kill someone. No one dies directly from just polyneuropathy (unless I guess you step on something, then become septic, then die....but then it is not 100% responsible since you died of sepsis).

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,800]

22 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

I did not read that. I posted an article in this thread that highlighted where experts and voters agree we can reform the system...what items in that list can you agree on?

Go back and re-read your list.  Which one of the top five items in the list would have prevented this?  A person with no criminal record, no FBI or local law enforcement radar traces, etc., etc., etc., that was more than willing to take their time to plan and outfit themselves to do this massacre and take himself with it would have made it through all of them.  The only answer then would be a complete and total firearm ban right?

[Dashinka 24,800]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

I will try to explain some of the data from a source that you originally quoted, but still don't seem to understand (and likely haven't read).

 

The short version - You can't compare those two numbers. Both are huge issues, but saying "Alcohol kills X and guns kill WAY less" is, pardon the use of an overly common phrase (but it is quite apt here), like comparing apples to oranges. You can use the CDC data to highlight both has problems that need solutions, you can't use their data to compare them and say we should ignore one in favour of the other.

 

The long version -

 

I'll tackle gun statistics first. It is pretty simple to understand. It is calculated by adding up people who are killed by a firearm. It is easy, because a firearm is directly involved in the death. Their cause of death, in the vast majority of situations, is the gun shot wound. Cause and effect are simple.

 

The problem is alcohol is not straightforward. The number you have chosen to quote by stating "Alcohol kills 88,000" comes from studies of alcohol-attributable deaths. That number includes things that can be considered "one hundred percent dependent on alcohol", which are included on a 1 to 1 basis. However, it also includes diseases and deaths that are "partially dependent on alcohol". In those cases, they then try to estimate what percentage of the death is due to alcohol (which if it sounds like somewhat wishy washy to you, that is because it is) and use that to adjust the numbers. Cirrhosis, utilizing pathology, can be fairly accurately contributed to alcohol exclusively in some cases. Very few other diseases are quite tightly linked. So it ends up being an amalgam of health conditions that alcohol is related to. Saying "Alcohol killed that person with hypertension" is a bit far fetched, and very different from saying "That person died of his gun shot wound". 

 

The statistics also include, as you point out, drinking and driving as well as a number of other "acute causes". Alcohol on its own does not kill someone in a motor vehicle accident. Alcohol plus a motor vehicle does. It has a shared responsibility. The statistics for gun deaths don't suffer from the same inflation of their data.

 

 

TL;DR - Alcohol CONTRIBUTES to X number of deaths, Guns CAUSE Y number of deaths. You can't compare those two things because when you start adding up everything that alcohol contributes to of course it will be a much larger number. It is a mind altering substance. It isn't a tool that is directly used to kill (well, rarely).

So let’s just compare the number of deaths preventable from alcohol related vehiclular deaths.  The numbers are closer, but alcohol still wins and both are preventable.  

Edited October 3, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So let’s just compare the number of deaths preventable from alcohol related vehiclular deaths.  The numbers are closer, but alcohol still wins and both are preventable.

https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/Default/Report.aspx?T=AAM&P=f6d7eda7-036e-4553-9968-9b17ffad620e&R=d7a9b303-48e9-4440-bf47-070a4827e1fd&M=8E1C5233-5640-4EE8-9247-1ECA7DA325B9&F=&D=

 

Around 12,600 vehicle related deaths.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

 

Around 34,000 firearm deaths

 

What stats are you using? It is helpful to provide sources. Sorry if that sounds sarcastic, but I'm not trying to be. There are a lot of different ways to measure things and so subtle differences in methodology can produce different numbers. Another reason why direct comparisons are always difficult. 

 

EDIT:

 

It's also interesting to point out that there are 7,756 "homicide" deaths under alcohol-related deaths. There are also "firearm injuries". It doesn't specify how many of those 7,756 homicide deaths are from a firearm (I'm assuming "firearm injury" is more of an accidental injury type situation, but not sure).

Edited October 3, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,800]

14 minutes ago, bcking said:

https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/Default/Report.aspx?T=AAM&P=f6d7eda7-036e-4553-9968-9b17ffad620e&R=d7a9b303-48e9-4440-bf47-070a4827e1fd&M=8E1C5233-5640-4EE8-9247-1ECA7DA325B9&F=&D=

 

Around 12,600 vehicle related deaths.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

 

Around 34,000 firearm deaths

 

What stats are you using? It is helpful to provide sources.

 

EDIT:

 

It's also interesting to point out that there are 7,756 "homicide" deaths under alcohol-related deaths. There are also "firearm injuries". It doesn't specify how many of those 7,756 homicide deaths are from a firearm (I'm assuming "firearm injury" is more of an accidental injury type situation, but not sure).

Here is what I found.  They do not include gun related suicides, and if we use the CDC alcohol related acute deaths also removing suicides, it still appears that alcohol wins.

 

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Here is what I found.  They do not include gun related suicides, and if we use the CDC alcohol related acute deaths also removing suicides, it still appears that alcohol wins.

 

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Since you mentioned CDC to begin with, I think it is apt to stick with CDC data. (https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/Default/Report.aspx?T=AAM&P=f6d7eda7-036e-4553-9968-9b17ffad620e&R=d7a9b303-48e9-4440-bf47-070a4827e1fd&M=8E1C5233-5640-4EE8-9247-1ECA7DA325B9&F=&D=)

 

You seem to be trying to just pick and choose data to prove your point. It doesn't work that way. Saying "lets just use acute deaths, and look alcohol wins!" has the same flaws as I already pointed out. 

 

What percentage of responsibility does alcohol play in falling deaths? People do fall to their death without alcohol, so it's not 100%. What about homicides? There are over 7,000 on the list. Alcohol surely isn't 100% responsible since they surely aren't all people killing with alcohol as their weapon. Heck many of those likely include guns, and so then you are comparing one statistic that includes deaths from the second statistic you want to compare it to.

 

Bottom line - You can't directly compare them. Alcohol alters your mind and changes your behavior. Guns are weapons. They are different things and the way they contribute to deaths are very different.

Edited October 3, 2017 by bcking

[CaliCat 3,957]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Since you mentioned CDC to begin with, I think it is apt to stick with CDC data. (https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/Default/Report.aspx?T=AAM&P=f6d7eda7-036e-4553-9968-9b17ffad620e&R=d7a9b303-48e9-4440-bf47-070a4827e1fd&M=8E1C5233-5640-4EE8-9247-1ECA7DA325B9&F=&D=)

 

You seem to be trying to just pick and choose data to prove your point. It doesn't work that way. Saying "lets just use acute deaths, and look alcohol wins!" has the same flaws as I already pointed out. 

 

What percentage of responsibility does alcohol play in falling deaths? People do fall to their death without alcohol, so it's not 100%. What about homicides? There are over 7,000 on the list. Alcohol surely isn't 100% responsible since they surely aren't all people killing with alcohol as their weapon. Heck many of those likely include guns, and so then you are comparing one statistic that includes deaths from the second statistic you want to compare it to.

 

Bottom line - You can't directly compare them. Alcohol alters your mind and changes your behavior. Guns are weapons. They are different things and the way they contribute to deaths are very different.

 

Alcohol has nothing to do with the issue of guns, but it is often used as a red herring.

 

[bcking 3,157]

10 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Here is what I found.  They do not include gun related suicides, and if we use the CDC alcohol related acute deaths also removing suicides, it still appears that alcohol wins.

 

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Giving it more thought, there is only one where situation where you can really compare the statistics.

 

You would have to compare Gun deaths to deaths due to alcohol poisoning (either self-inflicted, or inflicted on others).

 

From the CDC data I already provided:

 

Alcohol Poisoning - 1,647 deaths

Firearms - 34,000 deaths

 

Any other comparison and you are comparing alcohol and its mind altering properties and long term health consequences to firearms as an weapon. 

[Dashinka 24,800]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

Since you mentioned CDC to begin with, I think it is apt to stick with CDC data. (https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/Default/Report.aspx?T=AAM&P=f6d7eda7-036e-4553-9968-9b17ffad620e&R=d7a9b303-48e9-4440-bf47-070a4827e1fd&M=8E1C5233-5640-4EE8-9247-1ECA7DA325B9&F=&D=)

 

You seem to be trying to just pick and choose data to prove your point. It doesn't work that way. Saying "lets just use acute deaths, and look alcohol wins!" has the same flaws as I already pointed out. 

 

What percentage of responsibility does alcohol play in falling deaths? People do fall to their death without alcohol, so it's not 100%. What about homicides? There are over 7,000 on the list. Alcohol surely isn't 100% responsible since they surely aren't all people killing with alcohol as their weapon. Heck many of those likely include guns, and so then you are comparing one statistic that includes deaths from the second statistic you want to compare it to.

 

Bottom line - You can't directly compare them. Alcohol alters your mind and changes your behavior. Guns are weapons. They are different things and the way they contribute to deaths are very different.

So stick to the CDC numbers, what are the stats for 2016?  How do you justify including firearm suicides in the total deaths?  I can agree with homicides and accidental gun deaths, but if a person wants to off themself they will find a way.  The point is that there are a lot of things used by people that lead to entirely preventable deaths.  Vehicles, bath tubs, tobacco, etc., but in this case we only want to ban limit or whatever one thing and not discuss the entirety of human behavior.

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So stick to the CDC numbers, what are the stats for 2016?  How do you justify including firearm suicides in the total deaths?  I can agree with homicides and accidental gun deaths, but if a person wants to off themself they will find a way.  The point is that there are a lot of things used by people that lead to entirely preventable deaths.  Vehicles, bath tubs, tobacco, etc., but in this case we only want to ban limit or whatever one thing and not discuss the entirety of human behavior.

That is not always true and is a gross oversimplification. We've already veered off topic and that would be even more off topic but we can discuss it at another time if you'd like. Firearm-related suicides are more likely to be successful, and statistics show that a decently large number of people who are unsuccessful with a suicide attempt regret attempting and would not try again. Not all, but a significant number. So if you removed firearms from the equation, they may still try, but they will be more likely to fail, regret it and seek help. They are also less likely to do it in the first place because you would be eliminating one of the methods that is seen as "quick and painless". There are other "quick and painless" techniques, but they aren't nearly as effective (overdosing on pills for example. That is a prime example also of people regreting it after and seeking attention. YOu can do that with pills, you can't with a gunshot wound to the head).

 

EDIT:

As for the CDC numbers - THey don't have the ARDI stats for 2016. While their stats have flaws, it is likely the best we have. Those sorts of studies are incredibly time consuming. They do not publish yearly data on the subject matter, so we are using 2006-2010 data. We could get the firearm related deaths from those years and average them if you'd like. Even the firearm data is technically from 2014. So it takes 2-3 years to get data out on firearm deaths, which are relatively easy to collect. It's another limitation of an incredibly complex topic (alcohol-related deaths). You can't just publish yearly numbers because you have to calculate them and that takes a lot of work and a lot of data.

Edited October 3, 2017 by bcking

[Sonea 138]

In my opinion comparing death rates of products is not a red herring. The more freedom you have to own particular products, naturally there will be higher death rates from those products.

 

Also with talk of changing the 2nd amendment, thats fine, just realize the social effects will be as great if not greater than what occurred  in the 1920s and 1930s.