So how come the cry for the banning of guns never takes into account the fact

[cliffordu]

that there are just about three times as many fatalities in auto accidents as there are gun homicides in this country**, and yet no one (except perhaps me) thinks that cars need to be banned, not guns.

After all, mass transit, like the police force, is there for everybody. Right??

THERE IS NO REASON FOR PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILES.


** there are 200 MILLION guns in the US. There are about 200 million cars, too.....

In 2005 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S:

12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),

17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths),

789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent (5% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2008


Death by auto:

37,248

As per: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

[Motown_Johnny]

1. cars are designed for transportation. Guns are designed to kill

seems pretty simple

[cliffordu]

3. Not if you had to ride along some of the roads I have.

Louisiana will fuck you up.

Cars feel like murder weapons then.....

[doc03]

4. Guns ownership is a Constitutional Right, an

automobile is a privilege.

[jody]

57. RKBA is protected by our Constitution not granted by it. You knew that but others forget.

:hi:

[leftstreet]

5. well, drive-by shootings

Sorry, couldn't help myself

[cliffordu]

7. Really, two birds with one stone......

:rofl:

[Xenotime]

88. Guns cause suffering and death from the moment they were conceived.

pure and simple

[enlightenment]

2. "After all, mass transit, like the police force, is there for everybody. Right??"

No, it's not there for 'for everybody'. There are plenty of places in the US where public transportation isn't just insufficient, it's non-existent.

Fix that first and then try this argument again.

And in what sort of math is 37,248 'three times' more than 30,694?

[cliffordu]

6. I said murder (see the stat) and car wrecks.

People who want to kill themselves will do it by any means available -

I've known one gun suicide, one who hung himself, and stepdaddy cut himself up and bled to death.


Still, the police cannot get to where I live in under 15 minutes, so I am on my own for protection......

Just like limited mass transit for others.

[Callisto32]

79. For five years, I lived in a town where police respone time was 20+ minutes.

The nearest police force with jurisdiction was headquartered ~27 miles away over some rural roads where high speeds are flat-out dangerous. Trust me, a lot happens in 20 minutes. I am sure that this town is not the only one in such a situation. So, there are places where police forces are insufficient, and practically non-existent as well.
The U.S. is a big place, and there are areas where neither public transportation nor police are readily available.

[salguine]

8. According to NationMaster, there are 1,307 deaths a year in the United States

from falling down stairs. I submit there should be no stairs.

This is ridiculous. Automobiles are intended as transportation. Guns are intended to shoot (and kill) things. See the difference?

[cliffordu]

9. Yep.

The hysteria over guns is specious at best.

We just love killing each other.

Watch television. Murder is entertainment here.

When cars are outlawed only outlaws will have cars.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

25. No,not really. Hammers are supposed to drive nails

The fact that they are sometimes used to splash brains does not make them less effective as hammers.

But why do I bother? I won't change your mind and you will not change mine.

[SmileyRose]

10. I wonder how many toddlers die because

Dad put the 250 pound TV on top a plastic folding table?

[cliffordu]

11. And the number who drown.

Or get born to Octomom.

[U4ikLefty]

12. It's called FREQUENCY. Most auto-users use their autos daily

or at least a few times a week.

Whereas most people do not use/clean their guns daily & do not use them for the amount of time that people drive their autos.

BTW, there are fewer gun-users than auto-operators.

[cliffordu]

14. Everyone who goes to the range in this country contradicts your argument.....

[U4ikLefty]

17. What a load of crap. Are you saying that people go to the shooting range

for the same amount of time that they drive?

Are you really trying to say that Americans use their guns the same amount of time they use their cars?

C'mon you are really grasping at invisible straws here.

[cliffordu]

19. Not grasping at straws...running a specious argument into the ground like

those who reduce it to:

"Guns bad. Ban bad guns"

[U4ikLefty]

22. Then prove to me that you HAVE an agument.

Show me that American use their guns for the same amount of time that they use their autos.

YOU are the one trying to comapre apples & oranges.

BTW, I AM a gun owner...so try this shit on someone who doesn't recognize BS stats when he sees them.

[cliffordu]

27. Hmmm. I just gave you the stats as I found them.

The google is your friend.

Call someone else a liar.

My "argument" is probably as much bullshit as the fake casualty numbers the Brady Bunch spew all over the airwaves.

But at least I know it.

The anti-gun crusaders can't even come to a consensus as to what an assault weapon really is.

Banning the guns is all that matters.

[U4ikLefty]

30. Awww Jeez...is this the best you've got?!?

You are the one who posted the OP & you default to these kind of NRA-slogans?

"the Brady Bunch"; "anti-gun crusaders"...shit, why am I even responding to you? You haven't given me anything except distraction & slogans.

I am done since you have NOTHING.

BTW, why is this thread not in the gungeon??? Nevermind, I will ask the mods.

Bye

[cliffordu]

33. Stomp your feet and be sure to push your lower lip out when you storm away.....

[U4ikLefty]

34. Yawn

[cliffordu]

35. I thought you were going to tell mom....

[U4ikLefty]

38. Zzzzzz

[Callisto32]

80. Frequency:

People who carry concealed are using their firearms, I would suspect, many more hours per day than they are using their automobiles. There are large numbers of people who carry. According to the Pennsylvania State Police Annual Firearms Report, there are about 1/2 million LTCF's in my state. That equals a lot of hours using firearms, presuming those people carry regularly. While I would guess that it is still not nearly the same amount of total hours spent operating vehicles, the number of hours spent using firearms might just be quite a bit higher than you expect.

[Abq_Sarah]

81. Maybe

You ought to spend a little more time on the range, being a gun owner and all.... ;)

When I lived two miles from work, I definitely spent more time per month on the range than I spent actually driving. Now, it's reversed. I guess it depends on where you live.

Plus, the automobile argument is valid especially considering driving a car on public roads is not a protected right.

[Tejas]

89. "frequency" huh? Well don't look now but

all the more the reason to ban cars. No cars, no vehicular deaths.

While we're at it, ban alcohol (hey, it worked so well years ago) so the amount of alcohol-related auto deaths will disappear too!

Gosh, this is exciting, when do we start???

[villager]

13. well, cars are licensed and insured for one thing - your NRA talking point folks

fight such simple considerations tooth and nail..

[cliffordu]

15. Not the argument I'm making.

Criminals (the argument for gun control) don't register thier weapons.....


Unless you just want to get rid of guns altogether, in which case I wish you luck. You'll need it.....

And I don't belong to the NRA. I hate the fuckers.

[villager]

21. well, sir, glad we found common ground on the NRA...

the thing with the cars/guns comparison/argument -- which does make the rounds -- is, well, fine: How about then we don't ban those violent, made-for-killing guns if we get the simple agreement they can be regulated the way cars are...

And yet, the NRA -- and thus the gun community (I understand you hate them, but those fuckers do inform much of the way rhetoric is shaped in gun policy arguments/jihads, yes?)-- goes bugfuck crazy at the notion...

[cliffordu]

23. When the second amendment was written it was a GIVEN that everyone

who lived on farms (most folks) would know how to handle a rifle.

Fathers taught their children to hunt and handle weapons.

Not now. Now the movies teach kids how to shoot the neighbor.......

We love killing. It's our entertainment...

[villager]

24. I don't disagree with most of those observations...

n/t

[cliffordu]

29. Although it sounds glib, people really DO kill people.

My aunt sally killed her husband with a frying pan.

I get cranky and post bullshit like this because I see people trying to ban violence by trying to get rid of it's scariest tool.

I saw four (fake) murders on the television tonight......

According to Michael Moore there are as many guns in Canada as in the US, yet they kill tons fewer of their fellow countrymen.....


It's us. People don't kill people, Americans do.


If all the guns were eliminated tomorrow, machetes or fire axes would take thier place.

[villager]

41. Here's where I do disagree with most of your points

of course there'll still be knifings, "fry pannings," etc...

But I suspect you will not see mass piano wire killings at shopping malls, campuses, etc. You won't see angry employees showing up with ninja stars at the work place.

There will be very very few drive by bow-and-arrow killings.

[cliffordu]

43. Absolutely correct.

except maybe the bow and arrow thingy....

BUT:

Those spectacular killing sprees account for how many deaths, exactly??

EVEN ONE IS TOO MANY, but still....The number of homicides relative to the number of guns in the US...( I wonder if the estimate of 200 million guns include the illegal ones....I think not...) is oddly low compared to the amazing amount of fear and anger it engenders.

The vast majority of killings are people killing their "loved ones". Not in groups in shopping malls or at work by strangers.

But you would't know that if you listen to the news or read the paper.

The media plays every lurid detail over and over to the point that it SEEMS like there are more than there really are.

Nothing sells like mayhem, and some asshole shooting five people really sells.

[villager]

59. I'm in L.A. I wouldn't minimize the drive-by/gang aspect to urban murder counts

bows-and-arrows notwithstanding.

If you guns out of the drive-by equation, a lot more young people -- and/or the toddlers standing 'round nearby -- would still be walking their neighborhood streets...

[Tejas]

90. My AK's don't drive up and down the streets every day - n/t

[ContinentalOp]

16. How come the paranoid anti-regulation gun nuts...

never take into account the fact that we have FAR stricter rules for owning and operating a car than we do for a gun? The day that you concede that all gun owners should be licensed, tested and insured is the day we can start to talk about banning both cars and guns.

[cliffordu]

18. What's with the name calling? Did I kneecap one of your relatives??

Wanna change the Constitution???

Get to it.

In the meantime my argument is just as specious/sound as yours.

And I ain't paranoid. I don't even own a firearm right now.

[ContinentalOp]

26. I wasn't calling you any names...

Just those people who are opposed to any and all gun regulations. I don't think we need to ban all guns, just regulate them heavily. Nothing unconstitutional about that. If you agree then I've got no beef with you.

But if you oppose simple licensing and registration requirements because you think Uncle Sam is going to grab your guns and keep your militia down, then yes, I think that's a bit paranoid and unreasonable.

[cliffordu]

31. No one could take the guns away at this point.

If the NRA would STFU, I believe there would be consensus that training and registration is a fine idea.

They are the ones who fan the flames for the pinheads......

And, really, the only people they serve is themselves...Lotsa money in guns and paranioa.

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. Can felons buy cars?

[cliffordu]

37. Not in my world, they can't.

Drunk drivers get new cars all the time, even those who have killed with cars before.

Felons cannot legally get guns. Not that THAT matters to them.

[ContinentalOp]

47. Interesting question.

I personally don't believe in taking away felon's rights once they have served their time. I think they should retain the right to vote and I think they should serve on juries. On the other hand, if you're convicted of drunk driving you lose your license for a certain period of time. Wouldn't it be reasonable to extend the same penalties to gun users? If Dick Cheney shoots a guy in the face while hunting is it unreasonable to ask that perhaps he should be banned from hunting for a year and required to take some safety courses?

[omega minimo]

20. Anyone can buy an assault rifle. Not everyone can buy a HUMVEE.

[DonP]

58. Anyone, Really? Which agency has to approve you first?

Which of the national agencies, FBI, Homeland Security, State and local Police has to approve the purchase of the Humvee before you can buy it?

A real assault rifle is a Class III full-auto or select fire weapon and requires fingerprints filed with the FBI and an extensive background check, a $200 tax stamp, normally 4 to 6 month waiting period and costs about as much as a Humnvee these days. The last M-4 I saw for sale was going for $25,000+.

Can you buy that Humvee if you have a restraining order against you or have ever been convicted of a felony? How about mental health clearance?

I'm not sure what the mandated period for picking up your Humvee is before oyu can drive it home, is that one day, three days or ten days?

Next time try to get even one or two facts before oyu say something so obviously wrong. Or are you one of those people that think that facts and details don't really count?

[ContinentalOp]

28. Take a look at the per-household stats though.

There are about 100 million households in the US and on average every household owns 2 cars. That means there's on average 1 auto related death per 2684 car-owning households.

On the other hand only 50% of households own guns. Which means that there is roughly one gun related death per 1628 gun owning households.

Or in other words you're about twice as likely to die from a gun in a gun-owning household as you are from a car in a car owning household.

[cliffordu]

39. Eliminate suicide from your stats and then what do you see??

[ContinentalOp]

48. Why would I eliminate suicides from the stats?

I guess you think they deserve to die? I sure am glad the suicide survivors I know didn't have any guns around the house.

[cliffordu]

49. My OP focused on homicide.

which, I suppose, is why folks want to ban 'assault rifles'.

This whole argument changed for me when I realized that it WASN'T 30,000 people murdered with guns per year.

It was just over 12,000.

Too many, but doesn't warrent (IMHO) the level of hostility towards them.

Or the fear.

[ContinentalOp]

50. It seems silly to ignore the distinction between murder, manslaughter and sucicide though.

I would think the vast majority of auto related deaths are manslaughter with a tiny minority of vehicular homicides or suicides. In other words, auto related deaths are mostly accidental. On the other hand, the majority of those gun related deaths are homicide or potentially avoidable suicides.

So look at it this way:

Guns are responsible for about 12,000 undeniably intentional HOMICIDES in a given year. How many are cars responsible for?

[cliffordu]

51. I dunno - I've had some close calls while on my bicycle that seemed like attempted

murder, but that probably doesn't count.

On a serious note, you have a very interesting question there. Probably fewer than a thousand.

[cynatnite]

32. Because it doesn't say we have the right to bear cars in the constitution n/t

[cliffordu]

40. I wish it said the right to own and bear bicycles....

Or ride bare on bicycles...or something.....

[yay]

86. I think that would fall under the 9th...

I don't know I think it would be pretty nifty to cruise through town in my birthday suit...

[ColbertWatcher]

42. Apples, oranges? n/t

[cliffordu]

44. Of course, I'm not stupid. Just making a point.....

Thirty thousand deaths are fine as long as everyone can drive and talk on their cell phone and eat a burger.

Banning guns would make us more civilized, if you listen to the arguments...

I believe the murder rate would stay the same as it is.

Maybe not as much "Collateral Damage", but not many fewer.

[Lucian]

45. I'm so glad the gun discussions are back!

The gun nuts come out of their hiding holes and we always hear how everyone should be strapped with 76328432946283 guns at any given moment, because goddamnit, it's a Constitutional right! Heehaw! :eyes:

[cliffordu]

46. I had to rent a second bunker just to store the extras!!

[aquart]

52. Smokers use air pollution to justify smoking. Same crap.

[VOX]

53. It's a bit harder to take your SUV up to the top of the bell tower.

And drive it over the edge and take out a few trees below, maybe. But, go up there with a rifle and scope, and you've got a very different scenario.

And that's the difference in this false-analogy scenario.

Gun ownership would be great if people would just govern their own behavior. Unfortunately, far too many individuals slip off their tether, and blast away in shopping malls, schools, churches, etc.

[TWiley]

54. False Logic .... typical from the gun industry.

Always the ever-present false comparison. Why not compare cheese with a Polar Bear?

Oh, and there has been lots of regulation passed on automobiles that has made them safer. Do you favor more regulation on handguns?

eidt for spelling

[virginia mountainman]

56. LOL OK...

Oh, and there has been lots of regulation passed on automobiles that has made them safer. Do you favor more regulation on handguns?

I would gladly comply with gun laws that wss like motor vehicle laws...

For example..

Like a Drivers License, a gun permit MUST be honored in every state.

No need for licensing and registration, if you don't use it on public property (public roads)

No minimum age for use on private property.

No background check when bought.

Can't easily loose the right to own one.

Doesn't matter what color it's painted, or marked up like a race car, it is whats under the hood that counts.

Mere possession of a car is not a crime., nor parts to a race car....

No laws requiring them to be kept locked

No 10 day waiting period...

No fedral paperwork, and very little state paperwork.

You will NOT be charged with a crime if someone steals it and uses it to commit crimes

The list goes on and on, want me to continue??

[TWiley]

60. yet more false logic

A Car does not equal a gun.
A car is a virtual necessity in today's society

A gun is not a necessity. Society would keep right on going along if there were absolutely no guns. It would stop instantly and face major change if there were no automobiles.

Next time, why not compare your gun to a cheesecake?

[yay]

61. Our lives

would be just fine without cars. Bikes, trains, subways, airplanes are all viable alternatives. There are many countries that get along just fine without cars, preferring mopeds and bikes. It would greatly help our obesity rate, dependency on oil, green house gas emissions ect.

You're just mad because they want to ban something you like and use. You're just mad because it would make your life inconvenient.

[TWiley]

66. yet more false logic

You are comparing The United States with "many countries that get along without cars" Well, those countries that do have something we do not. It is called "mass transit" Again, you compare candy to beer farts.

I cannot take a train, airplane, or subway to work because there are none. Try riding a bicycle in Chicago for a commute that takes 40 minutes by car. Let me know how that works out ok?

[yay]

68. Well then

Doesn't that tell you that we need too focus on building mass transit systems? Buses, subways? stuff like that to help rid ourselves of our dependency on oil? Eliminate drunk driving and the like as well, make the country a much better place. Cleaner air, less fat people, less auto accidents.

BTW, I have and I do. It takes 15 min by car to get to my school and I ride my bike every day. About an hour and a half round trip. Like I said you won't do it because it's "inconvenient" and requires vast amounts of effort.

I think cops should be the only ones with cars.

[TWiley]

75. More logical fallacy

I agree with building mass transit. That is not the topic. I disagree with comparing a gun with mass transit or an automobile. However you are also comparing your relative health with mine, and your commute to school with my commute to work across different street systems and weather conditions.

Quote: I think cops should be the only ones with cars End Quote: You do? well that is an odd position for a gun enthusiast to take I must say. Are you taking the discussion in yet another direction now?

[rrneck]

65. If you need

to defend yourself from someone who is a lot bigger, stronger, and more agressive than you, then a gun will be a necessity. But before and after the fact it's just a hunk of metal.

That's why people get so worked up about guns. You may only really need it once in a lifetime, if then. But when you need it, nothing else will do.

[TWiley]

67. This is why it is a statistical fact

This is why it is a statistical fact that guns increase the level of violence in society. Someone who is bigger and stronger may give an ass whooping to someone who is smaller and lets say the result is a black eye and a fat lip. Now, if a gun is used by the smaller fella, then a death or more serious injury due to a gun shot is a likely result.

I do understand that the person getting an ass kicking is you, and therefore makes sense to have a gun handy just in case. This sense of false security can actually create more serious altercations under specific circumstances.

Your observation about guns, that they may only be needed once in your lifetime is a valid point. This is why comparing an automobile to a gun is so rediculous ... if not downright stupid.

[yay]

69. Or if you're a woman

It can result in rape, theft, beaten to a bloody pulp, sometimes even death. Much more than a "black eye and a fat lip". Have you actually ever spoken with a rape victim? The psychological effect is profound, that "false sense of security" is a lot better than no security at all.

As for your "statistic". Why is it that the swiss have an extremely low level of crime and violence considering every male eligible for service is required to have an "actual" assault rifle and ammo in his home? Why is it that in a few small towns here in the U.S. where it is required to have a gun in the home, that crime is non exsistant.

An armed society is a polite society

[rrneck]

71. I've never

thought it productive to compare one country to another when it comes to issues like guns. Each country has a unique history that creates a unique culture. That cultural environment makes for a unique population that produces solutions unique to that population. Whether anyone likes them or not, firearms are a part of the warp and weft of American society, and we have to come up with a way to deal with the problems they create in our own way.

Although an armed society is indeed a polite society, there is more than one way to achieve civility. I would rather we create a more just and fair country in which to live. A country that sees to the needs of all its citizens with compassion and equanimity. Fewer poor desperate people means less violence and the potential need to deal with desperate acts with desperate responses.

[yay]

72. I agree 110%

But unfortunately I don't see that day in the near future.

And even then, I'll still cling to my guns. As they are a great way to kill some time(no pun intended). Hopefully my niece takes a liking to them as well once she's old enough to shoot :D

[TWiley]

78. Do you support touher gun controls?

Now if you said "I think people convicted of domestic assult should not be allowed to own a gun" I would agree, or if you said "I believe that anyone with a violent conviction, even a misdomenor, should not be allowed to own a gun" I would agree. If you said, sentances should be mandatory and trippled for anyone convicted of using a gun in a crime ... I would agree.

Your theory on civility also depends on the behavior of other people does it not? I assume your argument is one of deterrance, but that one always falls apart. Why not give every Iraqi 6 different guns and an unlimited supply of bullets? Would this not make Iraq the safest place in the world?

It sounds like heavily armed areas like South Central LA, the Cambrini Green project in Chicago, and various neighborhoods in Detroit and New York should be featured in "Ettiquette Today" magazine.

[TWiley]

76. oh really

Quote: An armed society is a polite society End Quote

So Iraq is a polite society? Afghanastan is a polite society? The mid-East is a polite society? By your reckonig, the ghetto would be a polite society. It is easier to find a gun in the slums than it is to find a fresh tomato.

Lets take your brilliant idea and give all school children loaded guns to carry in their lunch pail. It will make the classroom more polite. Right?

Now you are using yet more false logic. You cannot compare the swiss with the united states. They have an entirely different system of social wellfare programs that address things like poverty, health, unemployment, and housing that we do not have here. Now, if you force the swiss to live under our economic conditoins, then I would suspect that their violent crime rate would begin to resemble ours. But when you mix guns with desperation, fear, poverty, no hope or social welfare, then you tend to have these little problems called gun murder.

Yes, assault can result in rape, theft, or being beaten to a bloody pulp. If you shoot someone before they actually take the crime to that level, then would they really have done it if they were not dead? At this point you must substitute "i thought he was going to rape me" with "he acually did rape me" which are slightly two different things.

Now, the statistical point is this, and it is a bit of a trick I must admit. If you are assaulted, then you have one crime, one victim, and one defendant. Now add a gunshot from the victim or a third party. Voiloa' you now have another incident of violence and a different victim along with a different defendant. This represents a statistical increase

[yay]

85. Well as many of you are so fond of pointing out...

Iraq and Afghanistan is a very different culture. There fore null and void according to many pro-gun control advocates.

As for the ghetto, again different situation. You have a bunch of criminals, killing other criminals in the name of money over an illegal substance(most likely), all while glorifying killing the other gang with a different color shirt.

Let me ask you this. If you knew that it was required for every home in your town/state be required to possess a firearm, as a criminal would you try to break into the home knowing that there is a VERY good chance of you getting shot? I thought not.

So let me get this straight... you WANT people to get the shit kicked out of them for what ever reason, full well knowing that it's a situation that can and very often does spiral out of control(even by accident) that could result in permanent psychological/physical injury? Oh but it's OK because that guy/girl is going to jail right?

Did you know that often just the mere sight of a gun is enough to stop people? The lines "Stop or I'll shoot!" is again often enough to stop an assault in it's tracks? It doesn't have to and often doesn't result in deadly force.

I'd rather be proactive in my defense thanks.

[TWiley]

91. Stop or I will shoot would probably stop most.

Quote: Let me ask you this. If you knew that it was required for every home in your town/state be required to possess a firearm, as a criminal would you try to break into the home knowing that there is a VERY good chance of you getting shot? I thought not. End Quote.

Well, to answer your question, if I was a criminal in such a town, I would simply break into your house when you were not home and then shoot you with your own gun when you came home. I am sure that crime would find a way.

There is no evidence that increasing the number of guns in a community actually makes it safer. Other factors tend to make bigger differences in the overall safety of a villiage than the number of guns in it. I can tell you this, if the socio-economic conditions that lead to increased incidents of violent crime change, then a town with more guns in it is more likely to experience gun violence. It is a statistical certainty.

If you remember Dodge City, or the wild west in general, guns had to be confiscated within the city limits in order to reduce gun violence. Increasing the number of guns made the problem worse.

[rrneck]

70. I must admit

that I don't put a great deal of faith in statistics. It's probably because I'm mathematically inept, but nevertheless I think that there are a number of factors that have an important impact on firearms at a societal and a personal level that statistics cannot illuminate. While we may be able to count the number and type of assaults etc. that occur after the fact, we have no way of knowing how many assaults did not occur because the assailant did nothing for fear of getting shot.

Also, statistics can offer us no personal guidance when an assault actually occurs. We just won't know for sure whether we're in for just a bitch slap, a shoving match, or a fatal beating. And what if a knife shows up or there are multiple attackers and a pack mentality develops? It seems to me that a strange line gets crossed when the blows begin and the realities of survival are different from everyday living. The possibility that one's opponent can put up a spirited defense gives a powerful disincentive to initiate a confrontation, especially if the aggressor or aggressors don't know "what's behind door number three". If someone gets attacked, they won't be thinking about statistics, they will be trying to stay alive and uninjured.

Given the huge number of potential variables in terms of the nature and the severity of an attack added to the potential severity of the outcome of such attack, a firearm is the prudent choice for someone who feels that they may find themselves in that sort of situation. But y'know, I hate these SHTF scenarios, and they are thankfully rare in our society.

We focus too much on the guns. We prepare too much for the moment when the trigger gets pressed. That shouldn't be a surprise in a country that allowed its economy get run off a cliff before we thought to do anything about it. If we put half the energy into taking care of people that we put into killing them we wouldn't have to worry about how many guns there were or who had them.

I'm not sure why guns are so unique anyway. There doesn't seem to ba an analogy that will be appropriate to help us understand the role of guns in our society. Is it because the outcome of their use is assumed to be irrevocable? Is it because they fit so neatly into the American fetish for quick and easy answers to complex questions? Are we all just a great thundering herd of Neanderthals held in check with the spit and string of polite society? I just don't know. Guns seem to sit in the nexus of every extreme of our lives. They mean life and death, success and failure, wealth and poverty, heroism and cowardice, war and peace. They mean everything and they mean nothing.

[yay]

73. Amazing post.

My hats off to you sir, a great post. Mind if I quote you on other websites?

[rrneck]

74. Thanks! Be my guest nt

[TWiley]

77. Here Here ..... Great Post !

You really nailed it.

[varkam]

55. Except that guns are designed to shoot things.

And, as someone else in this thread pointed out, people spend a hell of a lot more time driving than they do shooting.

[paulsby]

62. not only that

but well over 50% of the gun deaths are suicides. iow, something that you have complete control over.

also note that many of the homicides are JUSTIFIED. there is no such thing as a "justified auto fatality" (although the way some people drive, i might want to revise that statement).

of course a very small %age of auto deaths are also suicides, but MUCH lower than firearms.

but when you are talking about risk from OTHERS, you don't count the suicides, since a gun won't make you commit suicide (and numerous nations that effectively ban personal guns have MUCH higher suicide rates than us), but merely offers a convenient means.

for example, japanese have a much higher suicide rate than the US. but almost none are done with guns (cause they have no access).

japanese americans, also have a higher suicide rate than most other demographics here, but they do a very large %age with guns.

why? because guns are an effective tool. but they don't CAUSE the act.

the average person - who is not a drug dealer, or engaged in some other profession where they contact a violent criminal element frequently is...

...

MUCH more likely to be killed in an auto accident than in a shooting.

that fact is incontrovertible.

note also that driving and owning an automobile is not a constitutionally protected right.

owning a gun IS

[yay]

63. We also need to take into account

Gang related deaths/murders. Criminals killing criminals takes another good chunk out of the death rate.

[paulsby]

64. right

those are referred to in police parlance as "misdemeanor homicides"

but yes, as mentioned. if you are NOT a drug dealer, hang with the criminal element, etc. you can significantly lower your homicide risk.

certain demographics in the US, for instance have much lower homicide victimization rates than others.

that's true along gender and ethnicity lines, as well as employment lines.

as a male, for instance, ceteris paribus, i am at a higher homicide risk than i would be if female.

as a male over 40, i am at a lower risk than if i was in my 20's.

etc.

otoh, if you don't drive after 10pm (especially on weekends) and especially avoid undivided rural highways (the most dangerous type of roadway), you can also lower your vehicle fatality risk.

[spin]

82. If over 50% of gun deaths are suicides...

and the government managed by some miracle to eliminate gun ownership in the states, than it would follow that people would have to find a different method of committing suicide.

Some of these methods such as suicide by car or by cop would endanger other people.

[Tim01]

83. I'd like to know how many deaths are caused by alcohol.

I would guess maybe 1000 times as many as guns. Alcohol poisoning,drunk drivers killing themselves, drunk drivers killing others, drunks who are not driving killing themselves,accidental fires from drinking and smoking, and massive health issues across a huge number of people.
Alcohol is not protected by the constitution. And drinking alcohol has very little benefit besides being relaxing, it isn't really useful for anything.
Between guns or alcohol, it is an easy choice.
But nobody is going to try to ban alcohol.

[TheWraith]

84. Depends on how you define "caused by alcohol."

About 100,000 people a year die from effects related to alcohol, but that includes 43,000 driving fatalities, plus suicides involving alcohol, etcetera. Are suicides the result of the alcohol, or was it simply a byproduct? What about the thousands of deaths in which alcohol exacerbates health problems?

Likewise, you'd run into issues with how to define "gun deaths." Theoretically, about 30,000 people a year are killed by guns, but the large majority--17,000 of those--are suicides. How many of those people would still kill themselves some other way if a gun weren't available?

[Tim01]

87. You make good points.

I knew a guy who froze to death, he froze to death because he was drunk. And I knew a guy who had a heart attack and died because his heart was badly damaged from years of drinking. Neither death was called alcohol related.

[Hoopla Phil]

92. Because it is for the children?