Summations Only

And these have nothing to do with the initial serving of alcohol.They relate, specifically, to the establishment serving alcohol to someone already intoxicated, the presumption being that an already intoxicated person lacks the faculty to weigh, properly, the risks of consuming additional alcohol. Both situations deal with whether the person involved is capable of giving consent.Don't cry at me just because you can't connect the dots.

Also, because they both carry a gun, he and his wife are statistically much more likely to kill each other than be killed by a stranger.

You are correct. They don't think they will end up with a dead child. But it turns out that guns in the house is are more likely to hurt and kill people who belong in the house than they are to hurt and kill criminals. We cannot say the same thing about a car.Not thinking about the consequences is exactly what people are saying is wrong.

If we all based everything we did on statistical probabilities, we'd sit at home all day doing nothing.Instead, though, we ignore the dangers of the world, real or imaginary, in favor of living our lives in a manner of our choosing.

An initial serving?And this has nothing to do with what ringo was talking about. You missed that really big dot right up front didn't you.Edited by AZPaul3, : splln

And that argument applies to pretty much everything that has risks.When you went to pick up supper, did you really weigh the risks that you were more likely to die in a car accident than you were to die from not eating supper tonight?Statistics are good, but it is pretty ridiculous to think we can all live our lives by themor, indeed, that we do.

Are you literate?The bartender is liable when serving alcohol to someone already intoxicated.The bartender isn't liable when he serves alcohol to someone who isn't clearly intoxicatedhe isn't liable for the first drink, but he does become liable for the drinks in excess of your intoxication past the point of being able to consent to further drinks.

In your own time.

As an argument for ignoring the facts, this could use a little more work.

Sorry ... this is off topic, but I had to laugh at this. Really? Let's try. Modified to make sense ... your statement with "car" instead of "gun".
"But it turns out that a car in the family is more likely to hurt and kill the people who belong in the car than it is to hurt and kill criminals."Yeah ... we can say that. Cars, or rather, the people who drive cars while drunk, eating, texting and talking on a phone, are more likely to kill you than a responsible gun owner.

[the bold] Which is exactly what ringo was talking about.See, you knew all along what the discussion was about. So why the smokescreen about some "initial drink" crap?

But the parallel statement would actually be "But it turns out that a car in the family is more likely to hurt and kill the people who belong in the car than it is to transport them from place to place." And a gun owner is more likely to kill you than a responsible driver. This has nothing to do with the comparative dangers of guns and cars and everything to do with where we put the word "responsible".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You rested his case.

The above misses the mark of being analogous to the statement about gun risks by quite a bit. These two statements are both accurate and analogous:

• Assuming that guns are purchased for protection, then when a gun is purchased it is more likely to injure or kill its owner and/or its owner's family and friends than be used for protection, its intended purpose.

• Assuming that cars are purchased for transportation, then when a car is purchased it is more likely to be used for its entire lifetime for transportation, its intended purpose, than it is to injure or kill someone.

The better one weighs relative risks and benefits based upon the information at hand, including statistics, the safer and better off one will be.It's worth mentioning again that over 50,000 people used to die in vehicle related accidents every year in the US, but now despite a greater population and many, many more miles driven per person, less than 30,000 people die every year. This is primarily due to improved vehicle safety features, primarily in automobiles. Guns could be made safer, too.--Percy