Police: Drunk Teen Responsible For Crash That Killed 12-Year-Old Girl

[Tim01]

"PITTSBURGH -- A teenage boy was arrested on Friday in connection with the crash that killed a 12–year-old girl in Jefferson Hills this month.

Police said 17-year-old Matthew Frank was driving a sport utility vehicle when it slammed into a pickup truck and killed Tia Wright and injured her father, Karl, and another girl on April 5 along Gil Hall Road."

http://www.wpxi.com/news/15922133/detail.html

I could post stories all day long everyday of some drunk person killing an innocent, but I'm not going to.Alcohol kills more people than guns,2 to 10 times as many.Yet alcohol is available at stores all over the place in spite of it killing so many people. It is easy to get anywhere. Much much easier than guns.

Anybody who wants guns more controlled because they are dangerous, should be at least twice as interested in more controls on alcohol.

Anybody who wants guns banned because they are dangerous, should be at least twice as eager to ban alcohol.


And add to this the fact that guns are tools which can be used by weak , and old people to very effectively defend themselves from almost any badguy, something nothing else can do.
And alcohol is just a drug that people drink for fun.

Guns are tools. Alcohol is a useless recreational drug, that kills at least twice as many people as guns.

[bluestateguy]

1. Life in prison

and the only reason I'm not saying death penalty is because of his age.

[ensho]

2. kick

nt

[Boudica the Lyoness]

3. Didn't Laura Bush do the same thing?

Only she killed a teenage boy and she got off Scott free.

[CrispyQ]

4. Shh!

We don't want the proles catching on that there are two rule books!

[GreenStormCloud]

22. In 1963, she was a prole.

Accident investigations were a lot different in 1963, and in 1969, than they are now.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. There is no evidence that she had been drinking. N/T

[mzmolly]

5. But alcohol isn't made precisely for killing

people. And there are controls about who can legally purchase alcohol. That said, I support the basic right to own a gun. I don't support the right to own an Uzi, however. ;)

[armueller2001]

6. How many crimes

have been committed in recent years by people with legally owned uzis? Is it a major problem?

[mzmolly]

14. I didn't say it was.

I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro common sense.

[rd_kent]

17. If you are pro-common sense, then you need to calibrate your common-sense-o-meter.

You stated a gun is designed to kill, and thats just plain false. You also stated the people should not be allowed to have an uzi, yet you provide no reason why, even when shown that legal uzi's rarely, if ever, kill anyone.


I am glad you feel you are pro-common sense, but I think your common sense is misguided by bad facts and false assumptions.

[mzmolly]

25. I don't care if you agree

with my assertion. But to suggest that most people own a gun simply to put holes in paper, is absurd. People own guns because they derive a sense of power and security from it. Why? Because these same people are afraid they'll have to defend themselves against another person who most likely owns a gun.

I'm not opposed to the legal right to own a gun, provided you're a sane, cautious, law abiding citizen. I am simply opposed to silly arguments in favor of gun ownership.

I'm out :hi:

[rd_kent]

31. The we agree except for the "silly arguments in favor of gun ownership" part.

You still have not provided a reason, other that your personal opinion, as to why certain guns should be banned. Until you do, you are the only one with a "silly argument for banning certain guns", right?

[mzmolly]

58. That's because I've never said guns should be

banned. I said I'm not supportive of the right to own assault weapons, personally speaking. I prefer that hand guns are sold under strict controls. Much like one needs a drivers license to operate a vehicle.

[rd_kent]

101. OK, I get it. But WHY do you hold that position? On what basis did you form that opinion?

[armueller2001]

114. Might I inquire

why you feel that people should not have the right to have "assault weapons"? More specifically, what is it about "assault weapons" that makes them more objectionable to you than say, a standard hunting rifle or a shotgun?

[eqfan592]

43. Actually, I would say the vast majority of guns are owned for target shooting.

Of the 12 firearms I own, only 2 are used for home defense (and those two were not my first firearm purchases). The others are for target shooting. Could the others be used for defense? Sure, but that's not what I use them for, nor would they be the most effective in that role. I think you'll find it's much the same for many gun owners.

Also, owning a gun for defense does not imply an inherent fear of home invasion, but rather an acceptance of the fact that the world is not always a nice place, and it's better to be prepared than not. Nor does it have to do with the home invader being armed with a gun or not. If all home invaders were armed with baseball bats, I'd still pick a firearm for home defense, as it makes for the best option when it comes to protecting my family.

[mzmolly]

59. I think it may depend upon where one lives?

I live in an area, where I feel safe. I asked my husband to get rid of the gun we had. I'm glad he did. I have a dog. He's a great alarm system/deterrent.

[eqfan592]

63. My wife and I also live in a typically safe area.

Which didn't stop an armed home invasion a few months ago from happening, unfortunately. Fortunately, the homeowner was armed and was able to defend himself. He attempted to warn the attacker away. The attacker then charged him, prompting the home owner to shoot him.

You folks made your choice, and I respect that. But for my family, I'd rather hedge my bets.

[mzmolly]

65. I hate to state the obvious, but I hope your gun

is kept away from children? My child went to play at a friends last year, and the Dad had a gun sitting on the night stand. :(

[eqfan592]

75. No children in our house at this time.

When we do have children over, the guns get unloaded and locked in the safe. When my wife and I do have kids, I'll be getting a quick access safe for our nightstand for a handgun, and a lock box of sorts for the 12 gauge so we can still have some immediate access to it.

These are all things my wife made sure I figured out before she even let me start keeping firearms in the home at all (back before she wanted one for herself ;) ).

[mzmolly]

78. Good for you!

:hi:

[eqfan592]

85. Thanks :)

I think you'll find that the vast majority of gun owners honestly do take safety VERY seriously, and very much frown upon creating situations where children may have unauthorized access to firearms. :)

[X_Digger]

51. Wait, you switched horses there..

"gun is designed to kill" vs "own a gun simply to put holes in paper"

Which is it? Are you arguing the design intent of firearms, or the reasons people procure them? Those are entirely different subjects.

[mzmolly]

60. I said I don't believe most people own guns for the sole reason

of target practice. I didn't switch horses. :hi:

[X_Digger]

66. Compare post 5 to post 25..

.. you jumped from one to the other.. did you get lost in which post you were replying to?

[mzmolly]

69. I said that I support

the basic right to own a gun, but I would not defend the right to own an Uzi. In other words, I don't care if Uzi's are banned. I would take issue with banning guns period, however. Not because I want one. But because I believe you have a right to own one even if I choose not to.

Keep in mind when the Constitution was written, guns were a very different.



Guns in that era, took one bullet at a time. I don't think Uzi's were on the minds of those who said we have a right to bear arms? Or even revolvers for that matter. ;)

[X_Digger]

73. Actually, semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles were available

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

"It was 4 ft (1.2 m) long and weighed 10 pounds (4.5 kg), which made it the same basic size and weight as other muskets of the time. It fired a .51 caliber ball<1> at a velocity similar to that of a modern .45 ACP and it had a tubular, gravity-fed magazine with a capacity of 20 balls. "

eta: "The Girandoni Air Rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. " In use at the time of the passage of the second amendment. Lewis and Clark carried one of these rifles.

[mzmolly]

77. And, a bit of context..

"The Girandoni Air Rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. The advantages of a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants, and low muzzle report granted it initial acceptance, but it was eventually removed from service for several reasons. While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs. Later, a wagon-mounted pump was provided. The reservoirs themselves proved very difficult to manufacture using the techniques of the period, made from hammered sheet iron held together with rivets and sealed by brazing, and were always in short supply.

In addition, the weapon was very delicate and a small break could make it inoperable. Finally, it was very different from any other weapon of the time and any soldier using it needed to be highly trained."

A rare, flawed gun used by the Austrian army that required 1500 strokes from a hand pump to fire, was not likely on the minds of the founding fathers. However, it it were the 1500 strokes thing rendered it a bit less deadly than the Uzi, you're attempting to compare it to. And, it was used in battle. Not found in the homes of average citizens.

[X_Digger]

83. Rare? Where do you read that?

If you want to do more research, check Beeman's reference. Quite a few were made.

But that's beside the point. It goes against your assertion that "Guns in that era, took one bullet at a time."

And if we hold up that same logic to other amendments.. does that invalidate first amendment protections for computers? Fourth amendment protections for cars?

[mzmolly]

84. Certainly rare for those not in the Austrian army. You're comparing apples and oranges.

This:

Does not = this:

The latter was used to slaughter children inside a school building in Columbine, Colorado. Too bad them crazy kids (Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris) were not aware of the highly effective Bacardi 151 tactic! :sarcasm:

I'm out. Have a nice evening.

[X_Digger]

89. I hope you realize that the first one is more dangerous than the second..

.51 caliber bullets (compared to .356 for 9mm) traveling at a speed almost the same as the one below (1060ft/s vs 1300ft/s).

[mzmolly]

91. LOL

I'll allow my prior reply to speak to the matter at hand.

Peace

[PavePusher]

111. "Keep in mind when the Constitution was written, printing was very different."

"Printing presses in that era, took one lead "slug" at a time. I don't think computers were on the minds of those who said we have a right to free speech? Or even typewriters for that matter."


See how that works?

[armueller2001]

30. If legally owned uzi's aren't a problem crime-wise

why would you suggest they should be banned? There's no reason.

Do you feel the same way about .50 caliber rifles?

[mzmolly]

79. First of all, I did not call for their banning. In addition, I do not agree that they're not a

problem crime wise. I've noted in this thread that they've been used in plenty of crimes. Most notably perhaps, Columbine.

http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

"Dylan -- Intratec TEC-DC9 (9-mm semi-automatic handgun) attached to a strap slung over his shoulder (under coat), Savage 311-D 12-gauge double-barrel shotgun (barrel sawed down to approximately 23 inches, initially half-hidden in Dylan's cargos).

Eric -- 10-shot Hi-Point model 995 carbine rifle on a strap (under coat), Savage-Springfield 67H 12-gauge pump shotgun he called 'Arlene' (named after a Doom character - initially in one of the duffels carried to the top of the grassy knoll -- stock and barrel sawed off, reducing the entire gun to 26 inches).

The sawed-off weapons, both around 30 years old, were so short that firing repeatedly from them caused their hands to bleed on the practice range initially. They apparently acclimatized to the weapons over the months preceding the shootings. Both gunmen also carried several knives, but they did not use them on April 20. They named their pipe bombs. Four bombs are mentioned on Eric's website, along with their specs. 'Vengeance' (pictured at bottom) and 'Atlanta' were found at the Klebold residence when police searched it."

[eqfan592]

88. I don't beleve a tec-9 is the same as an uzi.

Similar in some respects, but very different firearms.

[mzmolly]

92. It's listed as Uzi. But the technicality doesn't matter as much as the basic point.

The arguments remain the same, regardless.

Peace :hi:

[X_Digger]

94. UZI = full auto, highly regulated.. Tec-9 = semi-auto

BIG difference.

[mzmolly]

96. Well then, you just made a greater case against

Uzi's. However many gun dealers seem unaware of the "big difference" you speak of. I believe they're referred to as mini-uzi's?

Cheers.

[X_Digger]

98. Lol, Uzi's run $9k, and only a limited number are civilian transferrable..

.. the media calls any pistol with an external magazine an 'uzi' not realizing the mistake.

There have been five crimes in the US that I'm aware of with true Uzi's. One of them was a police officer.

[taurus145]

115. I inheritted a Tec-9

If I lock 4-5 of my closest friends in a phone booth with me and empty the magazine (32 rds) I may actually hit one of them with a ricochet.

Not my choice of weapon if you want to hit where you're aiming. It is a dandy paperweight, though.

[armueller2001]

116. and OMG

They look SOOOO SCARY!! Ban them!

[eqfan592]

7. Nor is a gun made precisely for killing people.

It's made to fire a projectile at high velocity. Whatever the target happens to be is up to the person holding the firearm. More often than not, this is paper. And even if the target is a human, gun shot wounds are far from 100% fatal.

And as the other replier stated, has there been a large issue of legally owned uzis being used in crimes? If not, then why would you not support a persons right to own one? Remember, in a free society, it's up to the person wishing for the restrictions to demonstrate a need for the restriction, not the other way around. ;)

[mzmolly]

15. Right. Guns are for entertainment, much like a good bottle of wine.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Hwp&q=uzis+used+in+crime&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

;)

[eqfan592]

42. First off....

...a gun can be used for entertainment, if you're into target shooting, but that's not it's primary purpose, either. Nor did I imply it was.

And a google search does not equal statistical evidence. But nice try, though. ;)

[Tim01]

8. So, accidental deaths don't count?

Do you figure since guns are mean, they kill people more dead that twice as many alcohol deaths?

If it's my kid, dead is still dead. Maybe your kids are different.

[mzmolly]

16. Of course we need reason in public policy. I just don't think the argument

presented in the OP has much cred. The "teen" obtained alcohol illegally, as do many who use guns to kill, while committing crimes.

[rd_kent]

19. You hit it Right on the head!!! "The teen obtained alcohol illegally"

and you agree that many (its most, actually) all gun crime is committed by someone that obtained it illegally.

You want to restrict uzi's (I assume you mean full automatic weapons) but that would be like banning Bacardi 151 and allowing regular Bacardi. Doesn't make much sense.

[mzmolly]

21. I think most people who own guns

are in more danger from the gun they own, than they are from any supposed intruder. But again it's your choice.

Regarding Uzi's your comparison is again ridiculous. Unless Bacardi 151 or regular Bacardi, can take out several people in a crowd?

On the other hand it can be argued that a handgun can "protect" you, so why own an Uzi? ;)

[rd_kent]

27. I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are wrong about your assumptions.

I think most people who own guns are in more danger from the gun they own, than they are from any supposed intruder.


That is completely wrong, but if you have evidence to back up your claim, I am willing to look at it.

Unless Bacardi 151 or regular Bacardi, can take out several people in a crowd?

So can a person driving a car. I used Bacardi because the OP is using booze as a reference. I will use a car instead. It doesn't matter if its a sub-compact or a dump truck. If the person using the vehicle chooses to plow through a crowd of people, is it the vehicles fault or the person driving it? Same thing for guns. Its how it is used by a person.


On the other hand it can be argued that a handgun can "protect" you, so why own an Uzi?


Why not own an uzi? Its a personal choice, like what kind of booze to drink or what kind of car to drive. A sub-compact can get you from point A to point B, so why own a Hummer?

[mzmolly]

64. Here is the evidence

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ZJ5J-GTTL/guns.htm

"Residents of homes where a gun is present are 5 times more likely to experience a suicide than residents of homes without guns (Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH; Grant Somes, PhD; Donald T. Reay, MD; Jerry Francisco, MD; Joyce Gillentine Banton, MS; Janice Prodzinski, BA; Corinne Fligner, MD; and Bela B. Hackman, MD, Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, No. 7, August 13, 1992, pp. 467-472.) Although the reader may or may not disagree with the morality behind suicide being illegal, the fact remains that a gun makes it easier to commit suicide in a fit of rage, depression, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence as to whether any kind of substitution occurs."

Also, your scenario about cars being used to take out a crowd is silly, frankly. Cars have a useful purpose. They're not designed to kill.

Owning an Uzi may be a personal choice, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if they were banned.

One has to go through extensive training to obtain a drivers license. One goes through more training and scrutiny to drive a semi-truck. Why do you feel one should be able to own assault weapons without the similar scrutiny?

[X_Digger]

68. "Cars have a useful purpose. They're not designed to kill."

Two things.. do you assert that guns don't have a useful purpose? Self-defense, recreation, hunting- are those not useful purposes?

And secondly, you still haven't addressed the "designed to kill".. a gun is designed to propel a projectile rapidly in one direction. This was true when the chinese used them to lob fireworks into the air, and it's true now when someone designs a target rifle for the olympics or a handgun for self-defense.

[eqfan592]

70. Let's not forget that Kellermann is a discredited hack.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Seriously, the guy wouldn't know logic if it smacked him in his face.

[mzmolly]

72. Some would argue that the purposes you note are useful.

But self defense and hunting fall under the "kill" category. Justified or not.

I maintain that guns are designed to kill. Again, you're free to disagree or bring up Chinese fireworks if you wish. ;)

[eqfan592]

80. An object capable of doing such a thing...

..does not mean it was designed to do such a thing. And self defense does not fall under the "kill" category. In fact, if it can be demonstrated that you went out of your way to kill somebody in self defense, that could land you in serious damn trouble. Self defense is about removing the threat, either by dissuading the attacker(s) from continuing on their course or by incapacitating the attacker(s). This does sometimes result in the death of the attacker, but it's far from always. In fact, more often than not, a firearm is used in a self defense role without a shot even being fired.

[mzmolly]

81. Uh huh.

:hi:

[X_Digger]

87. Then do try to be clear..

The original intent of 'guns' was to entertain crowds at the Ma Shing Festival.

If you're not talking about their original intent, but their common intent now, there are as many different 'intents' as their are models. My Ruger MK I was designed for target shooting. My skeet gun was designed for competitions. My Springfield XD was designed as a military weapon by the Croatian firm I.M.Metal (Prvi Hrvatski Pištolj). To assert blindly that 'guns' were designed to kill generalizes and over-simplifies a long history of differing designs.

[X_Digger]

76. See linked thread.. been debunked before

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=221485

[mzmolly]

82. Not effectively

IMHO.

[X_Digger]

90. If nothing else perks your interest..

"The authors note that "One or more guns were reportedly kept in 45.4 percent of the homes of the case subjects," This implies that no guns were kept in 54.6% of the households. No study was made of how many were killed by guns kept in the home versus those brought in by a perpetrator."

What credible 'study' purports to show that guns in a household make one more likely to be shot, when more than 50% of their 'cases' involve guns that were not kept in the house??

Seriously? Whoops, I sneezed, and it floated away.

[mzmolly]

95. I think the key word is "kept" vs. easily obtained?

Again, I must drag myself away now.

Have a nice night. :D

[X_Digger]

97. If that was mentioned in the Kellerman study, I missed it..

Have a nice night as well.

[PavePusher]

112. Point by point...

1. The Kellerman study has been so shot full of holes, it's not really any good as a target anymore. I'll leave that research as an exercise for the student...

2. Cars, considering they are not "designed to kill", kill considerably more people than firearms every year (approx 3.5:1 ratio if you exclude suicides). They are either badly designed, unsafely operated or horribly defective. Ban them.

3. Meh.

4. "One has to go through extensive training to obtain a drivers license." Really? How extensive is this "training"? Every state I am aware of, you walk into the DMV, take a written test and a road test, and walk out. No proof of training required. And the fatality/injury stats bear that out. Semis/commercial licencing is stricter, but not by much. Show your "certificate" from any two-bit driving "school" and take the test. Bingo, Bob's yer uncle. I wish I could own full-auto weapons with such ease and lack of expense...

[GreenStormCloud]

28. Please support you contention.

You said: I think most people who own guns are in more danger from the gun they own, than they are from any supposed intruder.

NOTE: Although you did not say it, I am assuming that you mean people who can legally own guns. I will instantly accept that people who are barred from having guns and have them illegally are in a very high risk group. I have mine legally, I do not view them as a threat to me or to my wife. (She can shoot too.)

[mzmolly]

32. I'm out for now, but I will support

my argument when I return. :hi:

[mzmolly]

61. Here you go:

"But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48)."

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ZJ5J-GTTL/guns.htm

I'm saying people who own guns, period. I don't think victims of gun violence care much how a gun was obtained? If we're arguing in favor of legal ownership, we're arguing in favor of gun control.

[armueller2001]

113. Did you know that the Kellerman study

did not account for WHERE THE GUN CAME FROM? Meaning, if an intruder brought a gun into your home and killed your entire family, it would get counted as a "gun in the home, people killed" stat?

Also, something to think about - Only a small, small percentage of self-defense uses of firearms end up in the assailant being killed (like, less than 5%). A majority of the time, the attacker is only wounded, shots missed, or no shots fired. An attacker does not need to be killed for a firearm to be an effective defense. These are the instances that are NOT included in the Kellerman study and many times do not even get reported to police so they are unquantifiable. There have been estimates from surveys that firearms are used over 2 million times per year in self defense, however.

[X_Digger]

53. Give me a bottle of bacardi, a handkerchief, a lighter, and a crowded subway car.. n/t

[mzmolly]

62. Not a very common way to

commit a crime.

[X_Digger]

71. "Unless Bacardi 151 or regular Bacardi, can take out several people in a crowd?"

'nuff said. You did not say 'normally', 'frequently', or 'rarely'- you said 'can take out several people in a crowd.'

I was merely demonstrating that a bottle of Bacardi can indeed 'take out several people in a crowd.'

[mzmolly]

74. I'm still not getting how one could take out several people in a crowd

with Bacardi and a match, sorry. :crazy:

[X_Digger]

93. Add a bandanna and you have a molotov cocktail..

I assumed that was clear.

[Taitertots]

9. Yes it is

It is a harmful chemical that is terribly damaging to the human body.

There are way stricter controls over who can buy guns, that everyone even the NRA support. FBI background checks, age restrictions, and strict restrictions on automatic weapons.

[mzmolly]

18. I'm glad there are restrictions on guns.

And on the sale of alcohol.

Alcohol can contribute to death yes, but it's ridiculous to suggest that there is a direct comparison between alcohol and guns.

[PavePusher]

54. You are correct. Alcohol contributes to far more deaths per year than firearms. n/t

[mzmolly]

86. Another apples and oranges

comparison.

I'm out. :hi:

[Taitertots]

109. There is a clear comparison between guns and alcohol

With alcohol being far worse for society and individuals.

Both have inherent risks that need to be weighted against the desires of the people to have them.

[spin]

11. And firearms are not made precisely for killing either...

firearms are made for many different tasks. Target shooting and hunting are two. Self defense is also a legitimate use of a firearm.

The defensive use of a firearm does not always require shots to be fired. Often, the mere presence of a firearm defuses a potentially bad situation. For example, my daughter was able to stop an intruder breaking into our home merely by pointing a large caliber handgun at him. The revolver she used was precisely designed for NRA Bullseye target shooting and was widely used in this sport until the advent of extremely accurate 1911 style .45 pistols after WWII.

The UZI you mention is primarily a sub machine gun designed primarily as a military and police weapon. As a full auto weapon it can be purchased in the U.S. but the price is enormous and the paperwork is far more involved than for a normal semi-auto firearm.

Over its service lifetime, the Uzi was manufactured by Israel Military Industries, FN Herstal, and other manufacturers. From the 1960s through the 1980s, Uzi submachineguns were sold to more military and police markets than any other submachinegun ever made.<1>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi

Some UZI variants are semi-auto only firearms that can be sold to civilians. They are basically no more dangerous than any other semi-auto weapon. I personally have no desire to own an Uzi, either full or semi-auto, but I have known people who owned both types and enjoyed shooting them.

[mzmolly]

20. I have a friend who owned an uzi as well.

He taught me how to shoot a 45. The fact that I had fun, and didn't kill anyone doesn't change my position on regulation, however. ;)

[spin]

29. Since you are obviously not anti-gun, what regulations do you support?...

[mzmolly]

67. I honestly feel that local authorities should be able to establish regulations.

Beyond that, I think one should demonstrate that they're sane and know how to use, and keep a gun safely in the home. I'd have no problem with a nationwide standard in this regard.

[PavePusher]

102. I think local authorities should be able to regulate other Civil Rights as well.

After all, that's worked out so well in the past, hasn't it?

That silly First Amendment, it's obvious that "local standards" should apply to what one may read, print, or how you may chose to veiw Ghod.

And that Thirteenth Amendment, crazy talk, I tell you. It's self-evident that it shouldn't apply in Georgia the same way it applies in Minnesota....

[spin]

118. I have no real problem with your possible regulations ...

If the citizens of Chicago actually want to own handguns and legally carry them, they can vote the current group of politicians out and replace them.

Eventually this will happen.

I've often stated that I felt required firearms training for gun buyers would be a good idea. Many states offer hunter safety courses that teach safe handling of hunting weapons. Most states who offer "shall issue" concealed carry licenses have a requirement for training.

In fact, firearm safety should be a mandatory class in high school. Basic firearm safety could easily be taught in a short four hour class. It's not rocket science, just basically commonsense.

But there would be opposition to the firearms safety course. If you had a requirement that an individual would have to present a card similar to a SCUBA certification card before buying ammo or firearms, the pro-gun advocates would complain that this requirement was designed to reduce firearm sales.



If you taught firearm safety in high schools, the anti-gun advocates would protest that this class was designed to make firearms more popular.

[rd_kent]

12. Guns have one purpose, to move a projectile at high velocity down the barrel, thats it.

What people choose to do with that high velocity projectile is a WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY!!!!


And I dont think just anyone can own an uzi anyway, so no worries about that.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

10. What a spurious argument

Alcohol does impair function, which is why this young man should not have been driving. Alcohol, without the abuse, was not designed to kill.

A car wasn't designed to kill, yet a DUI person killed someone using a car. Accidents happen and they can be prevented.

Guns were designed to kill. How are guns actually related to this sad news item? Are you trying to make a point? What a pointless post.

End of argument.

[rd_kent]

13. Your premise is wrong. Guns are not designed to kill. That is a false assumption.

Guns are designed to move a projectile at high velocity down the barrel. Thats it, nothing more. What a person chooses to do with that projectile is up to the user.


So, to conclude, guns are not designed to kill.


End of argument.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

38. Um

You don't read much of the history of guns?

For a gun lover like you, you aren't very knowledgeable on your history.

[rd_kent]

104. Really? Up thread it was noted that the chinese first used a gun to shoot fireworks into the air fo...

entertainment.

And your use of "gun lover" shows that you really have no interest in learning something new or having your false assumptions corrected. Have fun living in ignorance, just remember to pull your head out of the sand now and then to breathe.


And to reiterate, guns are designed to propel a projectile down a barrel at high velocity. That is their purpose. What people choose to do with them is another story.


Bye bye now!

:hi:

[FunkyLeprechaun]

107. No

Can you tell me what gunpowder was initially used for?

And it's definitely not fireworks.

[Katya Mullethov]

108. Dick pills ?

Carters little liver pills to the ancients ?

[rd_kent]

110. gunpowder? Who cares? The discussion is about guns, you know, the object in question.

but nice try to dodge.

[spin]

24. Explain to me why you think guns were designed to kill?

True, a firearm is a weapon, so are bows, knives and axes.

This compound bow could easily be misused to kill.



As could this hunting knife.


Bark River Knives: Custom Hunting Bowie

Or this camp ax.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

39. Of course bows are designed to kill as well

Knives and axes aren't actually.

[PavePusher]

55. Let me paraphrase you...

"You don't read much of the history of Knives and axes?

For a 'X' lover like you, you aren't very knowledgeable on your history."

[spin]

56. Some knives are definitely designed with the primary purpose of fighting ...

for example, daggers.

A dagger (probably from Vulgar Latin: 'daca' - a Dacian knife) is a double-edged blade used for stabbing or thrusting. They often fulfill the role of a secondary defense weapon in close combat. In most cases, a tang extends into the handle along the centreline of the blade.

Daggers may be differentiated from knives on the basis that daggers are intended primarily for stabbing whereas knives are usually single-edged and intended mostly for cutting. However, many knives and daggers are capable of either stabbing or cutting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger

The sharpness of the point on a dagger is more important than the sharpness of the blade edge, consequently most dagger blade edges are not particularly sharp. The design and width of the blade and the usual guard render them inferior to kitchen knives for slicing and dicing food, but superior for thrusting against an opponent.





And some modern axes are also designed with fighting in mind.

Fusion Battle Ax
F02T

Our modern battle/throwing ax evokes its origins from medieval times, which some might consider to be the present. Whether used as a target ax, SWAT tool, universal back up, or hung above the fireplace; it is very effective. The pike in the back is upswept for better target penetration. Size and heft are balanced for optimum swing control. The handle is sculpted from heavy duty black Pakka wood and the entire solid blade is protected with SOG�s Hardcased coating.
http://sogknives.com/store/F02T.html

[PavePusher]

57. The classic tomahawk was designed almost exclusively for hand-to-hand combat. n/t

[mzmolly]

26. I agree.

:hi:

[rd_kent]

33. You agree with what? False assumtions and bad facts?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

40. Bad facts?

Says the one who doesn't read up on the history of guns and what they were actually designed for.

[eqfan592]

45. Major history fail.

They were designed to do just as what has been said here several times: move a projectile at high speed. Was the initial employment of this new device as a weapon used against other people? Yes. But even then to say it was "designed specifically to kill" doesn't hold water, because gun shot wounds never had even close to a 100% mortality rate. You could argue that they were designed to cause a significant amount of damage to their target, which may or may not eventually result in death, but that's still different than just saying "they were designed to kill."

Saying that guns were "designed to kill" is, at the very best, overly simplistic in the extreme, not to mention being inflammatory and not very pertinent to the argument at hand.

Just for fun, from the wikipedia page on guns: "In modern parlance, a gun is a projectile weapon using a hollow, tubular barrel with a closed end—the breech—as the means of directing the projectile (as well as other purposes, for example stabilizing the projectile's trajectory, aiming, as an expansion chamber for propellant, etc), and firing in a generally flat trajectory."

[rd_kent]

105. Seems like you are the only one in need of a history lesson.

[Tim01]

34. It doesn't matter what they were designed to do. Does not matter.

They still are not killing as many people as alcohol, not even close.

Please explain how intention matters more than result. It sounds to me a lot like you care more about emotions than fact.

Alcohol kills more than guns. If you support alcohol rights, and are against gun rights, you support more people being hurt and dead.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

41. Look

Apparently my point went way over your head

Alcohol was initially designed for enjoyment. If people who abuse it die from alcohol-related diseases, sure it can kill. However alcohol itself wasn't designed for that purpose.

What are gun rights? Does this actually mean I have car rights? House rights? Clothing rights?

[Tim01]

100. Alcohol kills people. It doesn't matter what it was desgned to do. nt

[rd_kent]

106. "Alcohol was initially designed for enjoyment" SO WERE GUNS!!!!!

How many times are you going to repeat this false claim?

[slackmaster]

117. Actually, alcohol was initially "designed" to provide safe potable liquids to maintain hydration

Read up on the concept of "small beer" some time.

Does this actually mean I have car rights? House rights? Clothing rights?

You have the right to say, own, and do whatever you want except for that which has been prohibited through due process.

[russ1943]

35. Not exactly....

OP states: “Alcohol kills more people than guns,2 to 10 times as many.”

If the comparison is (as is your example) the number of people killed by drunk drivers, to the number of people killed by firearms then you are in error.
There were 13,491 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in 2006 and 12,998 in 2007, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) National Center for Statistics and Analysis. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811016.PDF
The number of people killed with “guns” has averaged over 30,000 a year for quite a while.

30,896 in 2006 & 30,769 in 2007. National Vital Statistics Reports, Deaths Final Data for 2006 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf & Deaths Preliminary Data for 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_01.pdfhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_01.pdf Page 20 Table #2 final2006andpreliminary2007.

Reputable verifiable sources demonstrate quite the opposite, the number of people killed by firearms in any given year is more than twice the number of people killed by drunk drivers.
Maybe the OP meant something else?
The OP may have meant that drunk drivers kill more people than are murdered with guns (in a year)? At least that occasionally is marginally true at least for some years, but still nowhere near the 2 to 10 times as many claimed.

[Tim01]

36. Alcohol deaths to gun deaths.

Alcohol has lots of ways of killing. Guns only have one. If there are no bullet holes, it was not a gun death.

My dad died of a heart attack. His doctor had been telling him for 2 years that the drinking was damaging his heart at an alarming rate, and if he did not stop drinking he would die early of a heart attack, he did.Call it what you like, but the bottom line is that if he hadn't been able to get alcohol, it would not have killed him. This way is in addition to the drunk people who kill others in car crashes. And people who die accidentally from alcohol poisoning. And all the other alcohol caused deaths. Wasn't the head of the Valdez drunk at the wheel?

I do understand your point, but alcohol kills differently than guns, less dramatic sometimes, but just as dead.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

44. So....

"Alcohol has lots of ways of killing. Guns only have one. If there are no bullet holes, it was not a gun death."

"Frykowski was shot twice, struck thirteen times over the head with a blunt object and stabbed in total 51 times. " (from the Tate Murders Case)

The blunt object? A handle of the gun, which was used as a murder weapon.

According to your logic, the gun only caused two bullet holes. However, according to your logic again, if he wasn't shot twice, and bludgeoned in the head 15 times with the handle of the gun instead, it's not a gun death.

*scratches head*

BTW How many ways does alcohol kill, besides drinking it? Do people actually intravenously have it? Do people snort it?

The act of drinking too much alcohol does harm the body in several ways. Thats ONLY one way of killing a person, drinking too much alcohol. That's it.

[eqfan592]

47. By your logic...

...somebody beaten with or stabbed with a broken bottle that contained alcohol would be an "alcohol death."

Counting a person getting beat to death with the butt of a rifle as a "gun death" makes as much sense as calling somebody who lands on a car after falling 500ft from the air onto it a "car death."

[russ1943]

119. Just so you know, for your information.....

England/Wales statistics regarding firearms injuries and deaths do include the firearm being used as a blunt instrument. There is one table that categorises method of killing and under shooting it includes crossbows.


2.4 INJURIES IN CRIMES INVOLVING FIREARMS
In 2006/07, 22 per cent of crimes involving firearms (including air weapons) caused injury, either
because they were fired or used as a blunt instrument (4,065 offences) (Table 2.07). This
compares with 23 per cent in 2005/06, and represents a slight reduction of one percent in the
number of injuries resulting from firearms offences. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf Page 39


Table 1.03 Offences currently1 recorded as homicide by apparent method of killing and sex of victim: England and Wales,
1996 to 2006/07
3. These figures may not agree with those in the firearms chapter because (a) figures include cases where the firearm was used as a blunt
instrument and (b) homicide figures include shooting by crossbows and are compiled at a later date and take into account the results of police and court decisions. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf

[eqfan592]

120. They also include "air weapons" in with firearms...

...so yeah.

And we all know of Home Office's track record when it comes to honesty and rationality.

But never the less, it IS interesting info.

[russ1943]

49. Other deaths caused by alcohol were irrelevant.

I qualified my post in my first sentence, writing; “If the comparison is (as is your example) the number of people killed by drunk drivers, to the number of people killed by firearms then you are in error.”
It was the OP’s example, and his words regarding the comparisonthat my post was about

[eqfan592]

50. Actually, the OP's assertion was not that drunk drivers kill more people than guns.

The drunk driver was an example of an alcohol related death. His assertion was that alcohol kills more people than guns, period. No specifics were given for either.

I'm not commenting on the accuracy of the numbers, just stating that your representation of the assertion made by the OP was incorrect.

[russ1943]

121. I misunderstood.

First you titled this thread, Police: “Drunk Teen Responsible For Crash That Killed 12-Year-Old Girl’.
Next you repeated a statement from the article “boy was arrested on Friday in connection with the crash that killed a 12–year-old girl”. Then in your post you state” I could post stories all day long everyday of some drunk person killing an innocent”. Most importantly, nowhere in your post did you reference alcohol use as a contributing or indirect factor to any deaths besides drunk driving. It would be difficult if not impossible to describe your dad’s death from a heart attack as one of those “stories” you describe as a drunk person killing an innocent.

I qualified my post in my first sentence; “If the comparison is (as is your example) the number of people killed by drunk drivers, to the number of people killed by firearms then you are in error.”

Even to describe the Captain of the Valdez as a drunk killing an innocent (while it may actually be literally correct) if we’re talking about people (and you know we are) he killed none. Marine mammals seabirds macroalgae and benthic invertebrates, but no people.

I took your post to strongly imply that you really believed that the number of people killed by drunk drivers exceeded the number of people killed with firearms by a factor of between 2 and 10. Now this is quite understandable, because the claim has been made before, here in the gungeon. But if you don’t believe that to be a fact and are referring to both direct and indirect alcohol causes of death not just drunk driving, then I retract my post where I said you were in error.
I apologize.

[Tim01]

122. My post could have been more clear.

No sweat.:toast:

[PavePusher]

37. Your numbers are off a bit as well.

30K+ gun deaths, only some 13K+ of them homocides, and a few of those results of legal self-defense. The vast bulk of the remainder were suicides, with a handful of "accidents". How many of the vehicle fatalities were suicides, how many were accidents? How many gun deaths were alcohol-influenced?

Personally, I don't count suicides in the reasons to ban any substance/object, and it is disingenuous at best to count them as crimes.

[russ1943]

46. No they're not off, your comprehension, well maybe.

Excuse me, but the point of my post was that the OP’s numbers were wrong. My numbers were from reputable sources with links. My numbers were not off!
If you personally don’t include suicides in the number of people who kill themselves with firearms as a part of the total number of people who are killed with firearms, that is your prerogative, but it is you who is in error. A suicide in this instance is someone who killed themself with a firearm. I offered no opinion about the reasons to ban any substance(?), and nowhere is there any reference in my post to count suicides as crime. Try to read and understand before posting that someone's “numbers are off”. Thank you.

[eqfan592]

48. Dude, take a pill.

Seriously, you act like some horrible bug crawled up your ass and died half the time when you're posting. Chillax! ;)

[benEzra]

52. The NIH puts the number of alcohol deaths/yr at 100,000.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/intro.pdf

Drunk driving is only one facet. Others are alcohol-related non-motor-vehicle accidents (falls, drownings, bike accidents, pedestrian accidents if not already counted in the DOT numbers), fatal overdose, alcohol-related homicide, alcohol-related suicide, alcohol-related diseases (e.g., liver diseases and alcohol-related cancers), and secondary causes related to alcoholism.

Note that I do *not* support banning alcohol, but alcohol does appear to kill more people than the individual numbers for guns, knives, impact weapons, all vehicle accidents, and illegal drugs combined, and alcohol is involved in a substantial percentage of deaths from those causes (except perhaps illegal drugs).

[Tim01]

99. Why is it ok for kids to die as a result of recreational drug use?

Clearly nobody is going to jump on the bandwagon to ban alcohol, even those people who want to restrict guns to save the children.

[Tim01]

103. How about a background check to buy alcohol?

Certainly anybody who is interested in further restricting guns should be even more interested in curbing the abuse of a dangerous recreational drug that hurts and kills people.