Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do People Really Want To Treat Guns Like Cars?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Kennah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 06:28 PM
Original message
Do People Really Want To Treat Guns Like Cars?
One can buy a car at age 18 without any sort of background check; however, I don't believe there is actually any federal law prohibiting a person under the age of 18 from purchasing a car. YMMV in some states.

Convicted felons can own and operate cars on public roads, and there is no waiting period to purchase one.

No license is required to buy a car--only to operate a car on the public roads.

Anyone can drive a car to a school or college.

With a valid license issued by a U.S. state or the District of Columbia, one can drive a car in any other U.S. state or the District of Columbia. I believe the same holds true for U.S. territories.

It would be very curious to see a breakdown, if such data were available, of the people responsible for the 40K+ fatalities on America's roads each year. Is it mostly otherwise law abiding people with a valid license, driving a registered vehicle, current plates and tabs, and paid current liability insurance? Or is it mostly people already in violation of the vehicle and/or criminal statutes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. You can buy a gun at gun shows almost everywhere.
without a background check. If you own a gun, drop it in a restaurant, and shoot someone, that is no biggie. If you hit someone with your car, you have insurance to take care of that and may be ticketed if negligent or charged if grossly negligent.

Hell, you have to get a license for a dog.

I think all gun owners should require a license, all guns require registration, and insurance be required to pay for accidental mayhem. That is called personal responsibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Registration. Easier to confiscate? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. You fear the government will confiscate your car?
How about your fishin equipment if you fish?
Will they come and confiscate your dog.

Fear they will confiscate your gun is nothing more than a baseless fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Yea. Ok. right.
Until they knock on the door.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. To confiscate our dog?
Or would they knock to confiscate your car?

I don't understand the baseless fear of the government that they will come and confiscate your registered private property?

But if they did, it would be polite to knock on the door first I suspose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Dogs don't get confiscated, they get "dealt with".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. You mean like in Post-Katrina New Orleans?
Oh right, never happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HankyDubs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. because the only thing missing from the Katrina disaster
was more guns and ammo.:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Guns and ammo was the only thing they went door to door seizing.
Stuff ending up missing/stolen is slightly different than armed agents of the government demanding citizens turn over their lawful weapons.

If they got them back doesn't really matter and misses the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HankyDubs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. you mean they weren't seizing
food and water?

Never stop thinking its a giant conspiracy against you.:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #28
33. No government agents were seizing privately owned food & water.
Looting by criminals isn't the same thing as agents of the government under order of the government seizing firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #28
41. You mean all that LEO in New O. were without food & water? Please explain. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #25
40. Are you saying that guns were NOT confiscated by fiat? Thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Does the government have any compelling interests which you are bound to respect?
If there was an effort to reduce the lethality of firearms in popular use, what would be your reason for opposing it?

Would it be your perceived potential need to go to war with the government?

That would sort of prove the government's case as to a compelling interest, wouldn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. "Fear they will confiscate your gun...baseless fear" - yep, NOLA didn't happen
The confiscations in NOLA after Katrina didn't happen, we've never been to the Moon, Rueters doesn't run photoshops front page.......


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. --snort--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Sorry, 2nd time in a week someone posted that stupidity here.
"baseless fear that they will confiscate your guns".


uh huh, yep, got the t-shirt, they don't want to ban them either...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
24. Nor the confiscation of SKS rifles in California, either....
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #24
38. Add to that what NJ and NY did... You have somewhere in the neighbohood of 700,000 rifles,
BB guns and pistols that were taken from their rightful owners with no compensation if they were unable to sell them.

New Jersey had an estimated 300,000 registered owners of "assault weapons," each potentially facing up to five years in prison for violating the state law if they failed to surrender them to the police, sell them to a licensed dealer, or render the guns inoperable.

New York City required rifle owners to register their guns in 1967; city council members at that time promised that the registration lists would not be used for a general confiscation of law-abiding citizens' weapons. Roughly one million New Yorkers were obliged to register with police. The New York Times editorialized on September 26, 1967:

"No sportsman should object to a city law that makes it mandatory to obtain a license from the Police Department and to register rifles. . . . Carefully drawn local legislation would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would be not to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons."

In 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins railroaded a bill through the city council banning possession of many semiautomatic rifles, claiming that they were actually assault weapons. Scores of thousands of residents who had registered in 1967 and scrupulously obeyed the law were stripped of their right to own their guns. Police are now using the registration lists to crack down on gun owners; police have sent out threatening letters, and policemen have gone door-to-door demanding that people surrender their guns, according to Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and author of two books on gun control.


Just sayin'...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
20. Baseless fear
Thanks Beevul
"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993

I ALWAYS root for Godzilla.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. ozymanithrax just hit you with:
Edited on Mon Jan-17-11 09:43 PM by lawodevolution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=361725&mesg_id=361725

The Lovejoy (by X-digger): No matter what the restriction is, it's justified by a plea to save the children.

Distraction: no one is trying to ban your guns is often used in the same post in which they then talk about their sensible gun laws to ban assault rifles. Obviously they want to ban guns but they feel that they might be able to lighten you up and dumb you up a little so you can allow them pass their sensible gun laws, then when they progress to the next step they will do the same thing again.

Empathy: Im a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law. The goal is for them to appear to be on your side then they will try to soften you up to the next step in their gun ban agenda. But remember that even members of the Brady family own guns, that does not mean they are not willing to ban you from owning them.
Also called "forced teaming" by X-digger: "An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a 'gun person', and decries the problems that 'we' face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends..""

Shame: If there is a shooting they will try to exploit that tragedy against whatever NRA meeting or gun show or event that will occur in the near future. They will say such things as, "is it appropriate to have the event so soon after the shooting" which would require that the pro-gun event is somehow wrong or bad in the first place. This also requires an implied loose association between the pro gun event and something bad which is listed below as another tactic.

loose association: Trying to associate guns, gun events, gun rights activists or pro gun groups with something they are not associated with in any way that people in general may consider to be evil or bad such as Evil Banks, Evil people, bad events or anything negative even though many people don't view guns in a negative way or gun owners as being evil. An attempt to label guns, gun owners or pro gun groups as evil by loose association with that which is considered evil.

Hate/Fear/Anger: They try to use disparaging names against gun owners just like any bigot would do against a culture or a persons view that is different from their own. Perhaps the gun owner will be affraid to support the second amendment after being exposed to this anger.

Lies, deception, manipulation, sensationalism: I have never seen a gun control debate in which the folks supporting gun control did not use a significant amount of false information, lies, and deception. They will talk about assault weapons ban while showing full auto guns that will not be effected by any AWB. Every part of the ignorance of firearms that they perpetuate is part of the tactic. They cant seem to figure out the difference between a magazine and a clip.

Exploitation of tragedy: They have prepared legislation in advance with the purpose of waiting for a tragedy, so that they can introduce that legislation rapidly after a tragedy. They are like vultures waiting for the kill.

Throwing up smoke: Yet when you try to argue against their plan, they try to shame you into thinking you are wrong for posting your views in light of the tragedy and they accuse you of attempting political gain and being insensitive to the victims even though they initiated the attempt at political gain via the tragedy. They distract you from their own disgusting exploitation of the tragedy by claiming you are exploiting it.

Harass gun owners: The laws they pass are not designed to make society more safe, they are designed to only effect law abiding gun owners by threatening or harassing them via legislation. Their goal is to reduce the number of people who own guns and therefore the number of people who fight for the right to own firearms. They try to make gun laws complicated and they try to use intimidation via legislation to try to get people to sell their firearms. They also try to attack gun ownership from every angle including making it more difficult for people to go target shooting, acquire ammo or go hunting.

Forced justification (beevul): This occurs when a gun control supporter suggests that it is necessary to have a "good reason" to own a gun or accessory, if you don't have a "good reason" to own such objects than they conclude they should be banned. The "good reason" will be defined by the gun control supporter, so any reason you present will be dismissed as incorrect. The best response to this is to simply explain that you don't need to express a reason in order to practice a civil liberty.



First off the final goal is confiscation, plain and simple, and no amount of statements like ("Fear they will confiscate your gun is nothing more than a baseless fear") is going to negate the fact that they are trying to ban and confiscate guns. Deception may be part of it if the poster actually knows the truth but is trying to deceive you; however, it is also possible he/she is delusional or unaware of reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
31. Confiscate my car? You ain't up on the law, are you
Cops CAN confiscate my truck if they even suspect, with no proof, it's been used in a crime (buying drugs etc.). I don't have to do anything wrong, all they have to do is suspect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Your gun show shibboleth has been debunked.
Since you raising it, it shows your real agenda. Let me set you straight on this again...Any firearms purchase from an FFL regardless of location has to go through a background check, even it if is at a gun show. Some states do allow private party transactions, some do not. In those states which do, not all of the gun shows allow non-FFLs to sell weapons.

If you shoot someone by accident, it is just like hitting them with a car. Same criminal negligence and civil liability would apply. Again, you are in error.

One gets a license for a privilege, not a right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Thank you. but your are wrong to assume I have an agenda.
Actually, two days ago there was a story about a man who dropped his concealed weapon an shot a woman and all charges were declined.

Still, that does not show why people who want to own a gun should not be required to be licensed, and have the gun registered. I also think that insurance should be mandatory.

It is called personal responsibility. If you have to get a license for you dog or your car, you should also have to get a license for you gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Privledges vs rights. You do not get a licesnse to vote, nor do you have to pay to do it.
Edited on Mon Jan-17-11 07:32 PM by ProgressiveProfessor
Also look at the reasoning in the law for such licenses, which is pretty much just for revenue generation.

I can not explain the lack of charges in that incident. However, that is at the discretion of the local prosecutor. The civil liability will bury the guy who was carrying a derringer (very bad decision)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. "does not show why people who want to own a gun should not be required to be licensed"
Who says gunowners should be licensed? You?


Why?


By the way, no licenses required for dogs here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. Criminal charges were declined.
You can bet he'll be paying for her injuries, either voluntarily, or in civil court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YllwFvr Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
34. you only need a permit to carry
for the most part most states dont require one to simply own one. if you refuse to get insurance, or cannot afford it, what then? lose the gun? Thats not a right, thats a privilege
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
27. Lemme fix that for ya
You can buy a gun at gun shows from a private seller almost everywhere.


You an also purchase and operate a car without a driver's license or insurance, as long as you can do it on private property.


Cars are registered because property taxes are levied on them because they are expensive and cause wear and tear on publicly-financed roadways. Cars are also operated and parked in plain view on public roads, and are large enough to mount an easily-visible sign on them.

Guns... not so much. Guns that are legally carried concealed aren't expensive and don't cause wear and tear on publicly financed roads or thoroughfares. They aren't publicly visible, nor are they large enough to mount an easily-visible sign on them.


And since a huge portion of crimes in which guns are used are being handled by career criminals who cannot legally own or carry a gun, people who's gun are unregistered and illegally acquired, do you really think that an insurance requirement is even remotely rational?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
39. Problems with your post...
"You can buy a gun at gun shows almost everywhere without a background check."

This is mis-leading. The NICS test is required to be given by all federally-licensed gun-dealers. If you go to a gun show, those dealers will run your application and i.d. just as they would in a brick & mortar gun shop. Those sellers who are NOT dealers do not run bg checks anymore than I will if I sell a shotgun over the kitchen table. I am not a dealer; in fact, I CANNOT access the NICS data base if I wanted to. It's for dealers.

"If you own a gun, drop it in a restaurant, and shoot someone, that is no biggie."

No, the person who dropped the gun could be subject to both criminal and civil actions; one being negligence; the other damages which might occur. Please be advised that some kind of "insurance" scheme can be used as subterfuge to limit the RKBAs, just as poll taxes were used up until the 1960s as subterfuge to keep poor people -- most esp. blacks and Mexican-Americans -- from voting. Further, operating an automobile and owning a dog is NOT a protected right under the Constitution, and hence not protected. Most states go to considerable length to state that driving is a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

What you call "personal responsibility" is often a thinly-veiled means to do an end-around on the Second Amendment. I would hate to think that all those engaging in free speech would have to follow your "requirements."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamtechus Donating Member (868 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. Bad analogy. You can't drive a gun. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. .
Sure You Can...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. Wow, that tank has a big, um...gun...no wonder you like it!
Wheee...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. For your vehicular fatality question


http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/
nearly 3 million people sustain injuries that require an emergency department

http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
In 2008, 11,773 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (32%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.


These numbers differ slightly from the CDC but might help on the overall picture.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. More people die in auto related incidents each year.
Despite more people owning cars, automobiles are involved in disproportionately more fatalities. Sources are shown in parentheses... the rest of the methodology is elementary level math. 2006 data was used because it was the most recent data I could find from the same year.

Gun ownership: 260,000,000 guns held by 80,000,000 people (wikipedia & gallup)
Auto ownership: 254,000,000 cars held by 147,000,000 people (US DOT)

Gun deaths not counting suicides: 14,013 (Homicide, Accident, Legal Enforcement, & Unknown)
Auto Deaths not counting suicide: 41,789 (estimates show <2% of fatal crashes are suicidal)

Auto deaths surpass gun deaths by 198.2% despite only having an advantage of 83.7% in ownership.
I'm gussing even MORE people are treated for auto injuries than gun injuries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #22
29. That's a lot of "survivable head injuries "
Just sayin .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #22
30. People spend a lot more time with cars, too: Americans, on average, spend
several hours a day in cars, which probably works out to something like a fatality for every four million person-hours in a car. For a good comparison, you need to know how many hours daily the average American spends handling guns
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. 3 million head injuries
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. Consider using complete sentences and providing links. Your comment is unclear,
but if you intend to claim 3 million serious head injuries annually from automobile use, the claim seems wrong:

Traumatic Brain Injury
... on average, approximately 1.7 million people sustain a traumatic brain injury annually ... http://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/

That estimate includes multiple causes, like sports injuries
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. Feel free to complain to the CDC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YllwFvr Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. handling them?
a minute or two a day. When it goes on my belt, and when it comes off. Doesnt leave the holster meaning it cannot be fired.

How many hours is it on my person? 8-16 hours a day, as long as im out of bed really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Well, you're welcome to suggest a more refined model, if you have one. My point is something like
this: essentially all automobile injuries are associated with someone actually using an automobile (not mere ownership), and essentially all firearms injuries will be associated with someone actually handling a weapon (not mere ownership). So to gauge relative danger (which seems to be the point of the post to which I responded) one needs somewhat more than mere possession numbers: otherwise, one is wandering near the land of statistical fallacies such as "taking a bath is much more dangerous than doing handstands on a lighthouse roof during a hurricane" or "using the stairs is much more dangerous than juggling with old dynamite"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 22nd 2024, 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC