It's really bizarre how one of the main tactics after a mass shooting is to try to shame gun owners and make them feel guilty for not wanting to surrender their rights to stop crime. Nobody shames anyone for having the occasional drink when a drunk driver kills people.
The comparison to alcohol is mocked, but it's actually pretty relevant. Alcohol-related causes kill about twice as many people per years as gun-related causes do, even counting gun suicides. This includes around 10,000 per year killed by drunk drivers, and 5,000 people under 21.
That last figure is actually more than the recently-touted stat that "firearms are now the largest killer of children in America". Of course, they define children as up to 19 or 21yo (depending on the measure). But even so, those homicides added up to around 4,500 in 2020.
While people often need guns for defense, nobody "needs" a drink. There is far more grounds to ban alcohol than there is firearms, especially given it has more than double the total death count. Yet we don't, because liberty matters too.
People scoff at this comparison, but they shouldn't. If 40,000 gun deaths per year are a national emergency even though most are suicides, then why wouldn't twice that amount of people drinking themselves to death/killing others with drunk driving also be one?
Moreover, if you commit a serious crime, even one not involving a gun, you can lose your right to have one. But if you have a prior DUI, any liquor store or bar will still sell you alcohol. And while there is an age minimum, it's among the most flouted laws in the country.
We of course tried banning alcohol before, and it was a disaster that fueled several decades of organized crime that persisted even after prohibition ended. It won't go any better for excessive firearms restrictions.
99,000 alcohol related deaths in 2020, vs 45,222 gun deaths, including suicides. So just over twice as many.

And unlike guns, where some unknown number of lives were saved by guns, I doubt anyone's life was saved by alcohol.

webmd.com/lung/news/2022…
I really hope no one takes this as me endorsing an alcohol ban - absolutely not. It's just making the point about the hypocrisy and hysteria over guns, when alcohol is statistically way more deadly but way more socially accepted.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Konstadinos Moros

Konstadinos Moros Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MorosKostas

Jun 8
With all the bullshitting around state "gun death" rates (which count suicides), I took a look at how CA stacks up with its more pro-gun nextdoor neighbors in terms of gun murders specifically, with the most recent FBI gun murder data, from 2019.

ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u…
California has an "A" rating from Giffords for strong gun control laws. In 2019, California had 1,142 murders committed with firearms according to the FBI. Given its 2019 population of 39.28 million, that comes out to 2.9 gun murders per 100,000 people.
Arizona has an "F" rating from Giffords for having weak gun control laws. In 2019, Arizona had 213 murders committed with firearms according to the FBI. Its population that year was 7.05 million, which gives us a gun murder rate of 3.0 per 100,000, almost identical to CA.
Read 9 tweets
Jun 8
While the fireworks with @Jason were an unfortunate bit in an otherwise great discussion, I do want to take on the question Jason asked a couple times, "how many have to die for it to be a mass shooting", because it's a frequent point of dispute.
A mass shooting should not be determined by how many people die, but rather by the *intention of the attacker*. For example, while there were injuries, nobody died in the New York subway shooting a while back, and thank God for that. But it was still a mass shooting to me because
the perpetrator was there to try to kill as many people as possible, and there was no other motivation beyond that, no other "rational" crime to pursue like robbery, revenge on an ex, or gang "turf" dispute or anything like that.
Read 11 tweets
Jun 8
Do you think China should have four times our vote in the UN? Similar concept.

Obviously, states are only partially sovereign, we are still one country. Hence why big states get more House reps, and more electoral college votes. But they can't run roughshod over the small ones.
California doesn't get to totally boss around Wyoming's 600k people no matter how many tens of millions live out here. They still exert great influence in setting national policy, again, thanks to electoral college and House. But the Senate was always intended as a check.
Simply put, if the Senate vanished, I think the "national divorce" everyone talks about would actually happen. No way rural states (and some medium sized conservative ones) stick around to be bossed around by the coasts.
Read 4 tweets
Jun 8
I agree. You know how much ammo costs right now? And Kyle just wastes that much so fast? This kid must be stopped. Reckless.
Holy shit the comments on that tweet are insanely entertaining.
Read 4 tweets
Jun 7
Hard disagree on the central premise of this article. I've certainly rolled my eyes at some of the overly "tacticool" side of things on occasion, but it's ultimately harmless.

frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/against-gun-…
Fans of what French calls the “tactical” or “black gun” lifestyle are almost never the ones committing any crimes. As to his point about defense vs. defiance, 2A has always been in part about defiance.
I think the disconnect is he defines "defiance" in a very odd way. I don't think the spirit of defiance, be it Gadsden Flags or FPC's "fuck you, no" has anything to do with a desire for power. It's a desire to be left alone, and contempt for those who try to break that peace. Image
Read 5 tweets
Jun 7
Part of it is also that the devil is in the details. Even among the segment of pro-gun people who support universal background checks, a lot of them would only support it on condition that a registry be impossible, with NICS becoming a phone app to support private sales and such.
Whereas when Democrats support UBCs, they typically demand a form of it that would make a registry possible in the future, which is a dealbreaker.

You see this in other areas, like polling on "free" healthcare. Sure, everyone supports it, until they know it will double taxes.
So when I hear about polls claiming 90% support for UBCs, all that tells me is that there is some form of hypothetical UBC which those 90% may support, but there isn't necessarily one form of it that would pass which ALL of them would support. Or even a critical mass.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(