Guns, Guns Guns

pokermind wrote:Hmm, More people are killed and maimed in Automobile accidents than guns, so why are we discussing banning guns and not automobiles?

Poker

Because unlike in the death by police officer stats where the difference in population sizes between the nations being compared was absolutely *obliterated* by the difference in fatality rate, the comparison between guns and automobiles is the exact opposite situation.


The very large majority of the entire population of the united states actively uses automobiles almost every single day for extended periods of time. Even with that being the case, in 2011 there were a whopping 35,543 motor vehicle fatalities.

The same year there were 32,351 deaths by firearm. Almost the exact same amount. But what percentage of the population do you think is actively not only having ownership of but actually using on a daily basis those guns?


If you use item A a million times and item B a thousand times and 4 people die using item A and 3 people die using item B you don't go after item A. Especially when item A is a critical part of the basic function of your entire society on a daily basis and item B is not.


Or, to put in the simplest possible terms...


Deadliness Comparison:

Guns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cars.


(Surprise surprise, since one of them is specifically designed to be and one of them is specifically designed not to be.)

pokermind wrote:Hmm, More people are killed and maimed in Automobile accidents than guns, so why are we discussing banning guns and not automobiles?

Poker

Because cars don't kill people. People driving recklessly kill people.
Can't you tell the difference? Sheeesh

I crack myself up

gcomeau wrote:

pokermind wrote:Hmm, More people are killed and maimed in Automobile accidents than guns, so why are we discussing banning guns and not automobiles?

Poker

The very large majority of the entire population of the united states actively uses automobiles almost every single day for extended periods of time. Even with that being the case, in 2011 there were a whopping 35,543 motor vehicle fatalities.

The same year there were 32,351 deaths by firearm. Almost the exact same amount. But what percentage of the population do you think is actively not only having ownership of but actually using on a daily basis those guns?

I think you are forgetting the point that most people who own guns don't go around like maniacs killing people. Most people who own guns go to ranges or go hunting animals. Most don't use them for violence against their fellow man.

Commodore Oakius wrote:

gcomeau wrote:The very large majority of the entire population of the united states actively uses automobiles almost every single day for extended periods of time. Even with that being the case, in 2011 there were a whopping 35,543 motor vehicle fatalities.

The same year there were 32,351 deaths by firearm. Almost the exact same amount. But what percentage of the population do you think is actively not only having ownership of but actually using on a daily basis those guns?

I think you are forgetting the point that most people who own guns don't go around like maniacs killing people.

I'm forgetting nothing of the kind. Nobody said they were. (At least most of them, it is self evident that some portion of them are, hence the regular occurrences of exactly that happening)

But the fatality data is the fatality data. With much much much MUCH lower incidence of gun use than automobile use we have comparable absolute numbers of deaths which translates to a massively higher evaluation of the deadliness of all those guns in the country than the deadliness of all those cars in the country.

That's just a simple fact. And it's one I find it stunning has to be argued over seeing as the entire point of guns is that they're weapons designed to be deadly and I really doubt anyone here isn't aware of that little detail.

pokermind wrote:Hmm, More people are killed and maimed in Automobile accidents than guns, so why are we discussing banning guns and not automobiles?

Poker

Tell me this. How many people loose their right to drive for commiting tradfic offences? How many must take lessons before being allowed to drive? For that matter how many must take out insurance against any accidental damage they may cause with their cars. How many laws (typically unenforced I admit) that say you must secure/lock your car?

Now how many aply to guns and gun ownership?

We also have laws restricting the size of car inexperienced drivers can carry, laws restricting the blood alcohol content for driving. Even what cars are allowed on the road.

But suggest anything of the sort with guns and listen to the screams.

Oh, down here in the state where I live, we have knife carry laws as well. (Made the knife I wanted to buy illegal . )

Annachie wrote:Tell me this. How many people loose their right to drive for commiting tradfic offences? How many must take lessons before being allowed to drive? For that matter how many must take out insurance against any accidental damage they may cause with their cars. How many laws (typically unenforced I admit) that say you must secure/lock your car?

Now how many aply to guns and gun ownership?

We also have laws restricting the size of car inexperienced drivers can carry, laws restricting the blood alcohol content for driving. Even what cars are allowed on the road.

But suggest anything of the sort with guns and listen to the screams.

Oh, down here in the state where I live, we have knife carry laws as well. (Made the knife I wanted to buy illegal . )

I really don't like this comparison, cars and guns. But that said.

And how many times do I read in the newspaper that the guy whose license was suspended still drives and causes another accident/death.

Followed by some idiot saying there should be a law.

Or the fact that anymore at least 90% of the people who are killed in a motor vehicle accident aren't wearing a seat belt. Yep there is a law for that too. But guns will be different.

Or that slowing by 5 MPH will reduce accidents, deaths and damage dramatically. Then go out and watch people going 15 and 20 mph OVER the posted speed limit.

Heck I did it for 20 years every time I drove through PA where my license was suspended. Long story around the time I joined the USN. Didn't know it. <Shrug>

But somehow laws about guns will be different. People will obey those laws.

Or to be real silly for a comparison.

How did the prohibition work? Or for that matter the silliness of the war on drugs? Which I bet causes more deaths both directly and indirectly than guns. Though guns will be involved in a lot of the drug killings.

Which is probably a driver in the stupid "cops kill people because of guns" stuff.

I do really wish that life had simple answers. Unfortunately if there is a simple answer it is probably wrong or going to cause a huge number of other issues.

Just saying,
T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:I really don't like this comparison, cars and guns. But that said.

And how many times do I read in the newspaper that the guy whose license was suspended still drives and causes another accident/death.

Followed by some idiot saying there should be a law.

Or the fact that anymore at least 90% of the people who are killed in a motor vehicle accident aren't wearing a seat belt. Yep there is a law for that too. But guns will be different.

Or that slowing by 5 MPH will reduce accidents, deaths and damage dramatically. Then go out and watch people going 15 and 20 mph OVER the posted speed limit.

Heck I did it for 20 years every time I drove through PA where my license was suspended. Long story around the time I joined the USN. Didn't know it. <Shrug>

But somehow laws about guns will be different. People will obey those laws.

No, they won't be different. Some people will violate them. A lot won't. And the overall effect will be a lot less dead people. Not none, but a lot less.

Just. Like. With. Cars.

Exactly. For example, look at Nz's road tolls over the last few years.....





after the 72 spike, we legislated mandatory seatbelts, and in 77, regulated allowable brake, steering and coupling part quality. After the 87 spike, mandatory standards for vehicle condition and licensing of vehicles to ensure safety levels. between 98 and 05, we had a rolling set of laws, one or two earch year, that mandated adherence to new safety requirements, such as seat belts, new speed limits, new car design, head and tail lights, and mimimum levels of mechanic work before the car can be allowed on the road. As of december, we have just had new lower levels of alcohol in your system before you care considered drunk, a lowering from .08 to .05. roadworthiness. After the laws came into effect, watch the deaths drop. And drop. and drop to

gcomeau wrote:

thinkstoomuch wrote:I really don't like this comparison, cars and guns. But that said.

And how many times do I read in the newspaper that the guy whose license was suspended still drives and causes another accident/death.

Followed by some idiot saying there should be a law.

Or the fact that anymore at least 90% of the people who are killed in a motor vehicle accident aren't wearing a seat belt. Yep there is a law for that too. But guns will be different.

Or that slowing by 5 MPH will reduce accidents, deaths and damage dramatically. Then go out and watch people going 15 and 20 mph OVER the posted speed limit.

Heck I did it for 20 years every time I drove through PA where my license was suspended. Long story around the time I joined the USN. Didn't know it. <Shrug>

But somehow laws about guns will be different. People will obey those laws.

No, they won't be different. Some people will violate them. A lot won't. And the overall effect will be a lot less dead people. Not none, but a lot less.

Just. Like. With. Cars.

gcomeau wrote:

thinkstoomuch wrote:I really don't like this comparison, cars and guns. But that said.

And how many times do I read in the newspaper that the guy whose license was suspended still drives and causes another accident/death.

Followed by some idiot saying there should be a law.

Or the fact that anymore at least 90% of the people who are killed in a motor vehicle accident aren't wearing a seat belt. Yep there is a law for that too. But guns will be different.

Or that slowing by 5 MPH will reduce accidents, deaths and damage dramatically. Then go out and watch people going 15 and 20 mph OVER the posted speed limit.

Heck I did it for 20 years every time I drove through PA where my license was suspended. Long story around the time I joined the USN. Didn't know it. <Shrug>

But somehow laws about guns will be different. People will obey those laws.

No, they won't be different. Some people will violate them. A lot won't. And the overall effect will be a lot less dead people. Not none, but a lot less.

Just. Like. With. Cars.

Horseshit.

I live in Australia, and, as has been pointed out, while Australia and New Zealand are very similar culturally, we went in completely different directions since Port Arthur. In Australia, we banned semi-auto rifles and restricted other firearms. In NZ they didn't. You'll find that the rate of mass killings in both nations is very similar. So despite almost two decades of firearms restrictions, the net effect has been negligible.

Also, despite a ban on various firearms, and it being difficult to get them in the country, we have been having regular shootings in various capital cities. The latest was that prick who took hostages in Sydney. As for not finding way's to kill each other... I lived in Alice Springs for over a decade. That town, with a population of less than 30,000, for a fair long while had a higher rate of violent crime and murder than Detroit. No guns used. Just hatchets, machetes, knives and sharp sticks. (Yes, sharp sticks. Walk down the mall in Alice and you'll see at least one person hobbling down the mall on crutches minus a leg. The wounds get infected.)

My point is this. Car safety regulations are designed to prevent accidents. And they are regularly ignored anyway. If you are being mugged, raped, and your body left in the alley, it is not an accident. Someone has made the decision to perform violence on their victim. Laws will not stop that person, only the threat or use of force will. The very first thing that a thug does before pouncing on someone is look around for cops. Why? Because they're the law? No. Because they have the force on hand to stop the crime.

A concealed weapon is one of the very few things that completely levels the playing field between a 100kg thug and a 60kg woman in high heels. Unless you feel that that woman shouldn't be allowed to defend herself?

All of the above being said, the point about training is a very good one. I agree that before being given a concealed carry permit, any person should be able to demonstrate that they are both safety conscious of their firearm, and capable of hitting what their aiming at. And not have any mental health issues.