Skip to main content

View Diary: Guns. Lots of Guns! (301 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I've carried my firearm for years of man hours. (4+ / 0-)

    I've not killed or maimed anyone with it.
    I've not caused property damage with it.
    Hell, by that standard, it's safer than some of the knives I've owned (cut fingers).

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:49:13 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Oh good. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, delver rootnose

      Then I guess you get to keep doing so.

      Of course, you know that anecdotal evidence does not apply here.  Having read your posts for a number of years I would expect that you would be able to make the above statement (okay not about the knives but...)  The bigger point is that if you want to use a comparison with vehicles to support gun ownership, I don't believe you are really doing a good thing as the comparison is weak and (to me) seems silly on the face of it.  You would have to have a ratio of deaths over time item is in use for it to make sense (and I would grant target shooting as legitimate in use time).  And I would warrant that you would have a difficult time coming up with a reasonably accurate estimate of time of use.

      My point is that the analogy is way too simplistic to be of any value.  It is flippant and not a very valid argument.

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 08:11:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm. What about first-time car owners? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, newfie

        In Montana, an 18 year old can take a written test, a driving test, and be given an unrestricted license to operate a car anywhere. No need for Driver's Ed classes or any other form of prior professional training.

        Not much in the way of proven ratio of hours of operation to injuries/fatalities there...

        I think the major point where the analogy actually breaks down is in mandatory insurance, not intended purpose or ratio of use to accidents. Not many (if any) states fail to require liability insurance on cars.

        But then, the right to drive cars isn't mentioned in the Constitution, either, so it never will be a perfect analogy.

        •  Well I stick to the (0+ / 0-)

          intent of the analogy and that is to show that far fewer deaths occur from guns than from vehicles.  That is where it fails from the get go for me.

          Montana sounds similar to MI then.  That makes little sense to me.  I like PA's regulations even though it is a pain in the neck.  50 (now 65) hours is a good deal of time on the road and you can do a lot of teaching during that period - these do not have to be professional training hours but a number of folks blend it.  And there is driver's ed in schools.

          "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

          by newfie on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 12:38:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site