How do we choose where to lay blame

[We Never Know]

Yes I'm revisiting this topic.
Hate me, sue me, ignore me, etc. Whatever floats your boat.

** I have a personal problem with one.

In 2021 there were 705 people killed and 2,830 people injured in mass shootings.

In 2021 there were 10,000+ people killed that involved alcohol related driving. Many thousands more maimed/injured.

Why do we blame the driver and not the alcohol
Yet
blame the gun and not the shooter.

Why can a shooting victim sue gun manufactures but a drunk driving victim can't sue the alcohol manufactures?

One is made to *kill and the other is made to alter the mind which can be and is deadly.

Misuse of both end up with deadly consequences.

Are not both the fault of the person misusing the product?

Technically all deaths caused by them both are preventable


Overall Stats....

Around 95,000+ people die from alcohol-related causes annually.
Alcohol Facts and Statistics | National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

Around 40,000+ people die from gun-related injuries annually
Everytown Research - EveryStat



* made to kill includes hunt, survive, protect, for sport, etc.
I used kill to appease some that would automatically bring it up.

** I have lost three family members to drunk drivers.

 

[idea]

Alcohol can only be purchased by 21+, drivers license is taken away from those who are incompetent.

Similar measure should apply to guns, restrict who can buy it, require a test, require license.

Interesting comparison.

Sorry to hear you have lost those you love to drunk drivers, that's really tough.

 

[Quintessence]

Different folks ascribe this in different ways.

For my part, since I became a science nerd at a young age, I came to appreciate the immense complexity of causality a wee bit earlier than was wise. Simplistic explanations of causality and obvious logical inconsistencies would be rebuked with a level of contrarian "nuh uh!" that really annoyed some adults and definitely got me in trouble. Unlike back then, now I recognize that they really didn't care about whose fault it was, what they really wanted was obedience and control.

So there's one possible answer to you - laying of blame is not about actually discerning causality in any accurate, scientific fashion but about instilling obedience and exercising control.

Not sure I really like that story, but it is one that has merit. I'm still a science nerd, and I still prefer to think about causality as... well... actual causality. Analytics can be done to determine the relative weight of contribution any variable has on a given outcome.

It doesn't take any fancy statistical analytics to understand alcohol is very directly responsible for alcohol-induced behaviors in humans to a pretty high degree. But again, on a social level it's not about that, but something else. We tried prohibition. It didn't work. We're trying to do the same thing with abortion. It'll end up having the same result as prohibition. Where it is unreasonable to enforce obedience and control, efforts to do so will fail. Alcohol is easy to homebrew. Guns are not. Well, at least that used to be the case. Guns are going the way of alcohol with 3D printers. They too are skirting the line of it being unreasonable to enforce obedience and control. Which is... really kind of terrifying to think about, really.

 

[We Never Know]

Alcohol can only be purchased by 21+, drivers license is taken away from those who are incompetent.

Similar measure should apply to guns, restrict who can buy it, require a test, require license

"Alcohol can only be purchased by 21+, drivers license is taken away from those who are incompetent"

The laws don't stop it.

"guns, restrict who can buy it, require a test, require license"

I agree 100%. I even said a medical/mental background check should be used for guns as well as a criminal background check(which should include juvenile IMO).
Most cried HIPPA violation. IMO a HIIPA violation may be what is needed to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

 

[We Never Know]

Different folks ascribe this in different ways.

For my part, since I became a science nerd at a young age, I came to appreciate the immense complexity of causality a wee bit earlier than was wise. Simplistic explanations of causality and obvious logical inconsistencies would be rebuked with a level of contrarian "nuh uh!" that really annoyed some adults and definitely got me in trouble. Unlike back then, now I recognize that they really didn't care about whose fault it was, what they really wanted was obedience and control.

So there's one possible answer to you - laying of blame is not about actually discerning causality in any accurate, scientific fashion but about instilling obedience and exercising control.

Not sure I really like that story, but it is one that has merit. I'm still a science nerd, and I still prefer to think about causality as... well... actual causality. Analytics can be done to determine the relative weight of contribution any variable has on a given outcome.

It doesn't take any fancy statistical analytics to understand alcohol is very directly responsible for alcohol-induced behaviors in humans to a pretty high degree. But again, on a social level it's not about that, but something else. We tried prohibition. It didn't work. We're trying to do the same thing with abortion. It'll end up having the same result as prohibition. Where it is unreasonable to enforce obedience and control, efforts to do so will fail. Alcohol is easy to homebrew. Guns are not. Well, at least that used to be the case. Guns are going the way of alcohol with 3D printers. They too are skirting the line of it being unreasonable to enforce obedience and control. Which is... really kind of terrifying to think about, really.

Well stated. And for the record, I can go into my shop and produce a working gun(not 3D printed) before you could brew some whiskey.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes I'm revisiting this topic.
Hate me, sue me, ignore me, etc. Whatever floats your boat.

** I have a personal problem with one.

In 2021 there were 705 people killed and 2,830 people injured in mass shootings.

In 2021 there were 10,000+ people killed that involved alcohol related driving. Many thousands more maimed/injured.

Why do we blame the driver and not the alcohol
Yet
blame the gun and not the shooter.

Why can a shooting victim sue gun manufactures but a drunk driving victim can't sue the alcohol manufactures?

One is made to *kill and the other is made to alter the mind which can be and is deadly.

Misuse of both end up with deadly consequences.

Are not both the fault of the person misusing the product?

Technically all deaths caused by them both are preventable


Overall Stats....

Around 95,000+ people die from alcohol-related causes annually.
Alcohol Facts and Statistics | National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

Around 40,000+ people die from gun-related injuries annually
Everytown Research - EveryStat



* made to kill includes hunt, survive, protect, for sport, etc.
I used kill to appease some that would automatically bring it up.

** I have lost three family members to drunk drivers.

I'm against the gun laws of the US and find them too lax, but I also find this a thought-provoking and solid argument. Personally, I think there is definitely a bias in favor of alcohol in many countries that doesn't extend to drugs and substances with similar potential for harm. The point about being able to brew alcohol at home but not make guns at home is also a good one.

I'm sorry to hear about your loss of family members to drunk drivers.

 

[We Never Know]

"Alcohol can only be purchased by 21+, drivers license is taken away from those who are incompetent"

The laws don't stop it.

"guns, restrict who can buy it, require a test, require license"

I agree 100%. I even said a medical/mental background check should be used for guns as well as a criminal background check(which should include juvenile IMO).
Most cried HIPPA violation. IMO a HIIPA violation may be what is needed to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

And for those who want to cry "HIPPA"

If when little Billy was young, he tortured animals, cut off their paws off to watch them crawl around and suffer. Took this bb gun and shot their eyes out to watch them stumble around blind and suffer. Then slowly cut them up or set them on fire to suffer more. ....
His parents took him to counselors but never figured anything out.

Do you think that medical juvenile information should be hidden so when he is older he can buy guns with no problem?

 

[We Never Know]

I'm against the gun laws of the US and find them too lax, but I also find this a thought-provoking and solid argument. Personally, I think there is definitely a bias in favor of alcohol in many countries that doesn't extend to drugs and substances with similar potential for harm. The point about being able to brew alcohol at home but not make guns at home is also a good one.

I'm sorry to hear about your loss of family members to drunk drivers.

I used guns and alcohol because they are both legal.

And thank you.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What, if anything, would you have change about the current status of alcohol? I'm genuinely curious.

I can think of some more DUI safeguards we aren't and I think should be using. And I'm sure it's no surprise I think the same of firearms.

Also, sorry for your loss. Truly.

 

[We Never Know]

What, if anything, would you have change about the current status of alcohol? I'm genuinely curious.

I can think of some more DUI safeguards we aren't and I think should be using. And I'm sure it's no surprise I think the same of firearms.

Also, sorry for your loss. Truly.

As I said in post #5

"Alcohol can only be purchased by 21+, drivers license is taken away from those who are incompetent"

The laws don't stop it.

"guns, restrict who can buy it, require a test, require license"

I agree 100%. I even said a medical/mental background check should be used for guns as well as a criminal background check(which should include juvenile IMO).
Most cried HIPPA violation. IMO a HIIPA violation may be what is needed to keep guns out of the wrong hands.


And thank you.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As I said in post #5

"Alcohol can only be purchased by 21+, drivers license is taken away from those who are incompetent"

The laws don't stop it.

"guns, restrict who can buy it, require a test, require license"

I agree 100%. I even said a medical/mental background check should be used for guns as well as a criminal background check(which should include juvenile IMO).
Most cried HIPPA violation. IMO a HIIPA violation may be what is needed to keep guns out of the wrong hands.


And thank you.

What do you think of MADD initiatives such as this one? Senate Passes Bipartisan Provision for Drunk Driving Prevention Tech in All New Cars - MADD
Honest to goodness preventative instead of responsive approach to alcohol abuse?

 

[We Never Know]

What do you think of MADD initiatives such as this one? Senate Passes Bipartisan Provision for Drunk Driving Prevention Tech in All New Cars - MADD
Honest to goodness preventative instead of responsive approach to alcohol abuse?

-People who don't drink will probably throw a fit because its in their car.
-People who claim not to drink(don't drink in public) will probably throw a fit thinking it targets them.
-People who do drink will probably throw a fit about control.

Its a touchy thing.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

-People who don't drink will probably throw a fit because its in their car.
-People who claim not to drink(don't drink in public) will probably throw a fit thinking it targets them.
-People who do drink will probably throw a fit about control.

Its a touchy thing.

I don't disagree with you. People throw a fit about emissions testing, safety requirements, licensing, and just about everything. The trick is to figure out whether the possible benefits will outweigh the restrictions, be they legitimate gripes or not.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And for those who want to cry "HIPPA"

If when little Billy was young, he tortured animals, cut off their paws off to watch them crawl around and suffer. Took this bb gun and shot their eyes out to watch them stumble around blind and suffer. Then slowly cut them up or set them on fire to suffer more. ....
His parents took him to counselors but never figured anything out.

Do you think that medical juvenile information should be hidden so when he is older he can buy guns with no problem?

I trust mental health evaluators to make the decision on whether there is a mental health concern that puts people in danger more than the general public, yeah. There are legal guidelines and requirements to disclose to authorities in those circumstances when relevent. But what's far more common than a sadistic kid skating past a counselor is a sadistic kid that's the way they are because of abusive parents who won't take said kid to counseling, or provide then with any sort of healthy framework to be a healthy person.

There's a lot of reasons mental health accessibility needs bolstering in this country, preventing firearms deaths and substance abuse being a part of a larger whole.

But I don't think mental health is the magic bullet (pun intended) to stop substance abuse or gun violence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do we blame the driver and not the alcohol
Yet
blame the gun and not the shooter.

Why can a shooting victim sue gun manufactures but a drunk driving victim can't sue the alcohol manufactures?

Generally, bars and restaurants (edit: and hosts of private parties) that serve alcohol to someone who's intoxicated can be held liable if the person goes on to drive while impaired and hurt someone.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes I'm revisiting this topic.
Hate me, sue me, ignore me, etc. Whatever floats your boat.

** I have a personal problem with one.

In 2021 there were 705 people killed and 2,830 people injured in mass shootings.

In 2021 there were 10,000+ people killed that involved alcohol related driving. Many thousands more maimed/injured.

Why do we blame the driver and not the alcohol
Yet
blame the gun and not the shooter.

Why can a shooting victim sue gun manufactures but a drunk driving victim can't sue the alcohol manufactures?

One is made to *kill and the other is made to alter the mind which can be and is deadly.

Misuse of both end up with deadly consequences.

Are not both the fault of the person misusing the product?

Technically all deaths caused by them both are preventable


Overall Stats....

Around 95,000+ people die from alcohol-related causes annually.
Alcohol Facts and Statistics | National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

Around 40,000+ people die from gun-related injuries annually
Everytown Research - EveryStat



* made to kill includes hunt, survive, protect, for sport, etc.
I used kill to appease some that would automatically bring it up.

** I have lost three family members to drunk drivers.

Because cars are typically used for transportation? Not necessarily to hurt someone.
Even if you’re hunting, guns only kill or maim. That is literally their entire desired function. You don’t take a gun to hunt food if you don’t intend to kill the animal, after all. Right?

Someone using a gun to kill someone, whilst an awful thing to do, is using the gun’s function. Using it awfully mind you, but utilising it’s intended function nonetheless. Indeed to shoot the shooter is again utilising the gun’s intended purpose. But I suspect it’s going to cause injury either way. If they’re lucky

A drunk driver is not utilising the vehicle‘s intended function. Maybe you could argue in an awful or entirely inappropriate manner. But it’s not supposed to be used as a weapon, even still!
If a car manufacturer made a vehicle which had a sole function (whether used properly or not) to hurt others, maybe victims could successfully sue said company.
But they can’t. Because you don’t use a car to hurt or cause injury. You can, certainly, if you’re not careful. But it’s not really their intended purpose.


(For the record, ultimately I don’t actually have any problem with people owning guns for hunting or even protection. As long as they’re responsible. But then again I don’t live in a country where I can get a gun at my local supermarket more or less. So )

 

[We Never Know]

Because cars are typically used for transportation? Not necessarily to hurt someone.
Even if you’re hunting, guns only kill or maim. That is literally their entire desired function. You don’t take a gun to hunt food if you don’t intend to kill the animal, after all. Right?

Someone using a gun to kill someone, whilst an awful thing to do, is using the gun’s function. Using it awfully mind you, but utilising it’s intended function nonetheless. Indeed to shoot the shooter is again utilising the gun’s intended purpose. But I suspect it’s going to cause injury either way. If they’re lucky

A drunk driver is not utilising the vehicle‘s intended function. Maybe you could argue in an awful or entirely inappropriate manner. But it’s not supposed to be used as a weapon, even still!
If a car manufacturer made a vehicle which had a sole function (whether used properly or not) to hurt others, maybe victims could successfully sue said company.
But they can’t. Because you don’t use a car to hurt or cause injury. You can, certainly, if you’re not careful. But it’s not really their intended purpose.


(For the record, ultimately I don’t actually have any problem with people owning guns for hunting or even protection. As long as they’re responsible. But then again I don’t live in a country where I can get a gun at my local supermarket more or less. So )

"Because cars are typically used for transportation"

Its not the cars, its the alcohol.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes I'm revisiting this topic.
Hate me, sue me, ignore me, etc. Whatever floats your boat.

** I have a personal problem with one.

In 2021 there were 705 people killed and 2,830 people injured in mass shootings.

In 2021 there were 10,000+ people killed that involved alcohol related driving. Many thousands more maimed/injured.

Why do we blame the driver and not the alcohol
Yet
blame the gun and not the shooter.

Why can a shooting victim sue gun manufactures but a drunk driving victim can't sue the alcohol manufactures?

One is made to *kill and the other is made to alter the mind which can be and is deadly.

Misuse of both end up with deadly consequences.

Are not both the fault of the person misusing the product?

Technically all deaths caused by them both are preventable


Overall Stats....

Around 95,000+ people die from alcohol-related causes annually.
Alcohol Facts and Statistics | National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

Around 40,000+ people die from gun-related injuries annually
Everytown Research - EveryStat



* made to kill includes hunt, survive, protect, for sport, etc.
I used kill to appease some that would automatically bring it up.

** I have lost three family members to drunk drivers.

I remember some years ago when a class action lawsuit was brought against tobacco companies for the harm caused by cigarettes. I wonder if a similar lawsuit can be brought against the alcohol companies. Not just for drunk driving, but for liver damage, brain damage, fetal alcohol syndrome, etc.

But in any case, we do blame the driver. In cases of drunk driving, the driver goes to jail, not a bottle of booze. Drunk driving is treated seriously, although certain enforcement methods have met with resistance, such as sobriety checkpoints and things like that.

As for cars, people have to take a test to ensure they have the skills to be able to drive. Some might argue that the test is probably too easy, considering the number of incompetent and imprudent drivers that one may encounter on the roadways. The one thing that differentiates driving with alcohol and firearms is that both alcohol and firearms have Constitutional Amendments guaranteeing their legality. Those are guaranteed rights, whereas driving is considered a privilege.

Regarding guns, I think it's understandable that some people are in a mood to crack down on gun ownership. The mass shootings, especially when it involves schoolchildren, have a very powerful effect on the public consciousness. I don't think that the laws will change that quickly, though, and the Second Amendment is not going to be repealed any time soon.

 

[SomeRandom]

"Because cars are typically used for transportation"

Its not the cars, its the alcohol.

Oh I misread. My apologies.
And my condolences for your loss

Allow me to rephrase then.
The intended purpose of alcohol is to get you drunk. You know the risks (or should) if you drive under the influence. So that’s really on the person if they choose to get behind the wheel whilst intoxicated. Granted maybe alcoholism should be taken into consideration but obviously should not absolve the perpetrator

Shooters typically are radicalised or have some kind of mental health issues. Not saying I don’t blame the shooter, because I do. They are responsible. But there are usually a lot of factors contributing to awful acts being committed certainly

Alcohol culture can absolutely be a factor. I will absolutely argue that. And that should absolutely be discussed more often, I think.

But as there are a myriad of ads and warnings and restrictions for alcohol and driving. So technically the companies producing the alcohol usually have done all what is expected of them from a legal standpoint. So I doubt they can be sued. Unfortunately

But I suppose it’s not helpful to blame the gun or alcohol specifically.
Is that like a thing in the US?
Usually the people who do that are painted as the ultimate culprits (if found guilty after their trial.)
Is it different in the US?

 

[Mock Turtle]

To me it is all about the decisions we make, and not about the various ways we might cause deaths.

Alcohol, in the form of wine or beer, or whatever has been around for a very long time. Many manage their consumption of such with no issues as to how it affects others or even themselves. Often however, the young (which it mainly is I suspect) will just not know how to handle alcohol consumption and hence become involved in such tragic accidents. I know this as a drinking youth and as one who has been well over the limit on a very few occasions. I was probably lucky in not coming to any harm, but I can see where so many go wrong - drinking too much and this affecting subsequent decisions, as to drinking more or driving.

As to guns, well I see such more about insecurity, and especially so when so many others might have weapons, with such mainly coming from the American cultural history and the inability to see a future free of such weapons, even though so many other nations have disarmed themselves mostly and seem content with such. Guns are adult toys after all, and it's no doubt nice to feel the power that they often seem to give, until someone uses them against you. And as all will have noticed, they are often the most convenient means to express one's anger towards an individual or others, and especially so by using proxies (the innocents) to achieve this.

So, not really the same at all - guns and alcohol - even if they both contribute to deaths.