4 ms·

Don't get me started. people seem to always look at me strangely when I tell them I don't drink. People like it and it is important to them so anything said aga

by baldfat 11y ago

Don't get me started. people seem to always look at me strangely when I tell them I don't drink. People like it and it is important to them so anything said against alcohol is RADICAL. People love being emotionally numbed and I guess people have a right to depress their emotions with drinking or whatever legal/prescribed drugs they want. There is very little said in terms of the emotional/relationship cost of their use. 1 in 10 US Deaths are directly related to Alcohol Use [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/alcohol-responsible-1-10-u-s-deaths/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/alcohol-responsible-1-10...] World Wide: In the age group 20 – 39 years approximately 25 % of the total deaths are alcohol-attributable. [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs349/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs349/en/]

Karunamon 11y ago
How much of that is due directly to the alcohol and how much is due to good old-fashioned human stupidity, slightly enhanced? The issue with this stat is that someone hurts/kills themselves or someone else, they had alcohol in their system, ergo it's an "alcohol-related incident". The problem with this line of reasoning should be obvious.
collyw 11y ago
Road traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for young people. Why not ban cars while we are at it.
- kokey 11y ago
  I find alcohol is good way to explain to people outside of the US how it is unlikely to get a ban on guns in the USA, even though it's obvious that would prevent death by a madman going on a shooting spree at a school. It would be like suggesting we ban beer in Germany or wine in France because of all the known alcohol related deaths.
  - mordocai 11y ago
    A madman would steal a gun or otherwise obtain a gun illegally. Just like people obtained alcohol illegally during prohibition. I'm not really disagreeing with your main point, just the "it's obvious that would prevent death by a madman going on a shooting spree". Hell, if the US banned guns I would still own one I would just hide it better.
    - tertius 11y ago
      Sounds like a law abiding way to go!
    - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
      > Hell, if the US banned guns I would still own one I would just hide it better. You probably wouldn't, because the risk of ending up in jail or prison would be unacceptable.
      - mordocai 11y ago
        Over someone who illegally has obtained a gun breaking into my house and shooting me? I'll take the jail.
        stefantalpalaru 11y ago
        The gun is not a shield, it doesn't prevent you from getting shot. It can only help you if you shoot first at any sign of home invasion. Most of the time it's just a family member or intimate acquaintance: http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
        mordocai 11y ago
        The study sounds correct for what it studies. People who keep a gun in their home are more likely to accidentally kill someone else that they already know. That makes sense, since people without one aren't likely to grab a knife and run at a perceived threat. Even if they did, it gives more time for the other person to react and announce that they are a friend. However, as an anecdote, most people I know of who actually know what they are doing (as in people who are gun enthusiasts, not people who bought a gun "for protection" and shot it enough to take a class then put it in a drawer) announce themselves before shooting as the goal is to get the intruder to leave. Quite often this alerts the intruder to your location and, in the case that they are an actual threat, they will charge at you (this is counter intuitive for me, but most stories I've read of home invasion with an armed resident seem to end this way). I only typically hear about these stories from survivors, but the cases I know of the resident killed or wounded their attackers and were safe. Basically, that long-winded group of anecdotes is to say that it is not the case that a gun can only help you if you shoot first at any sign of home invasion. Anyone who actually knows something about guns knows that you only point a gun at a target you have identified and are prepared to destroy. For the most part, that means you won't shoot first at any sign of home invasion.
  - relaytheurgency 11y ago
    I was unaware that banning things rendered them impossible.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      You just don't have the proper faith in the legal system. http://www.theonion.com/article/proposed-bill-would-bring-4000-troops-back-to-life-2329 http://www.theonion.com/article/proposed-bill-would-bring-40...
  - collyw 11y ago
    There is a slight difference in that with alcohol you are most likely to kill yourself, whereas a gun you are more likely to kill someone else.
jahnu 11y ago
It's possible one might be better off drinking slightly more than recommended.. http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/truth-wont-admit-drinking-healthy-87891 http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/truth-wont-admit-dr...
rburhum 11y ago
How about drinking 4oz of wine to complement a good meal? Not drinking to get drunk??? Shocking, I know, but many adults do this.
- mod 11y ago
  I think that's strange. Beyond disagreeing with the taste of wine, I personally don't drink any liquid in 4oz portions. I sit down with 32oz of water at dinner time, and typically finish it.
ohitsdom 11y ago
I'm sure you get harsh reactions to your opinion, but seems like your attitude towards drinkers is a little harsh as well. > People love being emotionally numbed > I guess people have a right to depress their emotions with drinking Blanket statements like this are unfair. I'd wager most drinkers do so moderately, and are not doing so to numb their emotions.
crimsonalucard 11y ago
I and most people here drink occasionally, but this doesn't change the fact that you're right. People paint illusions around what they like.
Jimmy 11y ago
>People love being emotionally numbed That's not what alcohol does. If anything, it's an emotion amplifier. It does usually put me on the happy end of the spectrum, but I don't consider that to be "numbing".
- mod 11y ago
  For me, it does numb me, for the most part. I suddenly don't care about a lot of things. Winning/losing, responsibilities, what my peers might thing, etc. I'm also a happy drunk.

by baldfat 11y ago

Karunamon 11y ago

How much of that is due directly to the alcohol and how much is due to good old-fashioned human stupidity, slightly enhanced? The issue with this stat is that someone hurts/kills themselves or someone else, they had alcohol in their system, ergo it's an "alcohol-related incident". The problem with this line of reasoning should be obvious.

collyw 11y ago

Road traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for young people. Why not ban cars while we are at it.

kokey 11y ago
I find alcohol is good way to explain to people outside of the US how it is unlikely to get a ban on guns in the USA, even though it's obvious that would prevent death by a madman going on a shooting spree at a school. It would be like suggesting we ban beer in Germany or wine in France because of all the known alcohol related deaths.
- mordocai 11y ago
  A madman would steal a gun or otherwise obtain a gun illegally. Just like people obtained alcohol illegally during prohibition. I'm not really disagreeing with your main point, just the "it's obvious that would prevent death by a madman going on a shooting spree". Hell, if the US banned guns I would still own one I would just hide it better.
  - tertius 11y ago
    Sounds like a law abiding way to go!
  - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
    > Hell, if the US banned guns I would still own one I would just hide it better. You probably wouldn't, because the risk of ending up in jail or prison would be unacceptable.
    - mordocai 11y ago
      Over someone who illegally has obtained a gun breaking into my house and shooting me? I'll take the jail.
      - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
        The gun is not a shield, it doesn't prevent you from getting shot. It can only help you if you shoot first at any sign of home invasion. Most of the time it's just a family member or intimate acquaintance: http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
        mordocai 11y ago
        The study sounds correct for what it studies. People who keep a gun in their home are more likely to accidentally kill someone else that they already know. That makes sense, since people without one aren't likely to grab a knife and run at a perceived threat. Even if they did, it gives more time for the other person to react and announce that they are a friend. However, as an anecdote, most people I know of who actually know what they are doing (as in people who are gun enthusiasts, not people who bought a gun "for protection" and shot it enough to take a class then put it in a drawer) announce themselves before shooting as the goal is to get the intruder to leave. Quite often this alerts the intruder to your location and, in the case that they are an actual threat, they will charge at you (this is counter intuitive for me, but most stories I've read of home invasion with an armed resident seem to end this way). I only typically hear about these stories from survivors, but the cases I know of the resident killed or wounded their attackers and were safe. Basically, that long-winded group of anecdotes is to say that it is not the case that a gun can only help you if you shoot first at any sign of home invasion. Anyone who actually knows something about guns knows that you only point a gun at a target you have identified and are prepared to destroy. For the most part, that means you won't shoot first at any sign of home invasion.
- relaytheurgency 11y ago
  I was unaware that banning things rendered them impossible.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    You just don't have the proper faith in the legal system. http://www.theonion.com/article/proposed-bill-would-bring-4000-troops-back-to-life-2329 http://www.theonion.com/article/proposed-bill-would-bring-40...
- collyw 11y ago
  There is a slight difference in that with alcohol you are most likely to kill yourself, whereas a gun you are more likely to kill someone else.

jahnu 11y ago

It's possible one might be better off drinking slightly more than recommended.. http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/truth-wont-admit-drinking-healthy-87891 http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/truth-wont-admit-dr...

rburhum 11y ago

How about drinking 4oz of wine to complement a good meal? Not drinking to get drunk??? Shocking, I know, but many adults do this.

mod 11y ago
I think that's strange. Beyond disagreeing with the taste of wine, I personally don't drink any liquid in 4oz portions. I sit down with 32oz of water at dinner time, and typically finish it.

ohitsdom 11y ago

I'm sure you get harsh reactions to your opinion, but seems like your attitude towards drinkers is a little harsh as well. > People love being emotionally numbed > I guess people have a right to depress their emotions with drinking Blanket statements like this are unfair. I'd wager most drinkers do so moderately, and are not doing so to numb their emotions.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

I and most people here drink occasionally, but this doesn't change the fact that you're right. People paint illusions around what they like.

Jimmy 11y ago

>People love being emotionally numbed That's not what alcohol does. If anything, it's an emotion amplifier. It does usually put me on the happy end of the spectrum, but I don't consider that to be "numbing".

mod 11y ago
For me, it does numb me, for the most part. I suddenly don't care about a lot of things. Winning/losing, responsibilities, what my peers might thing, etc. I'm also a happy drunk.