Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Appreciation Day shootings (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How much time is spent driving (3+ / 0-)

    on a given day, as opposed to to handling guns?  How many more people are involved in driving?

    •  Wrong approach . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WillR

      the correct question, for you, is which is more likely to kill you, a car or a gun.  I strongly suggest, in light of the (I would hope) obvious answer, that you look before you cross . . . and that what you should be looking for is not firearms.

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 07:40:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for playing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        astrogeology girl, a2nite

        apples and oranges.

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

        by newfie on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 09:01:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  dead is dead (0+ / 0-)

          whether it's an apple or an orange that got you.  But if you want to play in the street it's your business . . . just don't dent my bumper.

          I don't walk in front of guns or cars . . .

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 10:13:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  So what you're saying is that we should (0+ / 0-)

        more strongly legislate cars and guns, right?  Even with the advent of texting, increased numbers of vehicles on the road, etc., automobile deaths are not increasing at a proportional rate, and gun deaths are increasing.  

        Thanks for the great regulation ideas.

        "Kindly go render the fat in your head in a large kettle of boiling water. Thank you." - Bumblebums -7.38, -6.46

        by balancedscales on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 11:35:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes, we should more strongly regulate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Oh Mary Oh

          both automobile safety and gun safety.  The number of deaths we tolerate per year from both is insane.  We have significantly increased the safety of cars (without banning most of them) but still have a long way to go . . . largly in reducing operator error (still the major cause of automobile deaths).

          There are, of course, differences.  Automobiles have a (relatively) short service life, so the entire fleet can be replaced with safer vehicles in just a couple decades (we don't much worry about fitting seatbelts or "modern" headlamps to a 56 Ford . . . there aren't any in service to retrofit), while guns have a much longer service life (I have three fully functional ones that predate 1956).  And things like tires have been much improved . . . "blowouts", once common, are now very rare.  There has been no equivalent in firearms (that wouold increase their safety).

          And with guns there is an additional "operator problem" . . . firearm deaths occur not just "by accident" but by design.  Mostly by design. That's rare with automobiles (and the ones that are specifically designed for killing are impractical for anything else).  Obviously:

          We need to stop automobile owners from killing people by accident, and

          We need to stop gun owners from killing people on purpose.

          Those are different problems, and will require different approaches to their solution.  At the present time people in cars kill three times as many victims as people with guns do (unless you include victims of war in the calculation), which suggests that car control should be our first priority (if the end goal is saving lives).  But that doesn't mean ignoring gun control . . . while the end result may be the same (though less common) there is something particularly offensive to the civilized mind about deliberate killing.   We need to find the cause of it.  We need to stop it. If there are uncontrolably violent people among us who simply cannot be trusted with guns we need to find a way to keep them separated from guns.  Or perhaps we need to find a way to simply dispose of those people entirely, since it's a reasonable assumption that they won't be safe around knives or baseball bats or, probably, automobiles either.
           

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 01:52:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  In all reality, I am very careful around cars. (0+ / 0-)

        For environmental and financial reasons I don't own a car and rarely drive.  I am a very careful pedestrian. I fully support the idea of improving auto safety, and would love to see the speed limit lowered and enforced.  However, I am tired of hearing people who are not in support of regulating guns use cars as an excuse. The vast majority of Americans use some form of vehicular transportation on a daily basis. According to Answers.com, 400 million gallons of gas are sold every day.  That adds up to a lot of driving.  For all that there are  around 300 million guns, they appear to be concentrated in about 32% of our households, down from around 50% in the 1970's. (2011 study from The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center.) How many of those guns are tucked away and rarely handled?  My point is that if somebody wants to say that cars are more dangerous than guns, they had better come up with much better data that takes into consideration actual rates of use. I suspect that if and when we get well developed and peer reviewed research into the impacts of gun ownership, both positive and negative, that we will find that there are one or more subsets of gun owners and the people around them, for whom gun ownership is much more dangerous than they believe.

        •  I haven't met that guy, (0+ / 0-)

          the one who says "don't regulate guns, because cars".  I haven't (quite) met the guy who says "everybody uses cars, so 30,000 deaths a year is OK", although some come close.  But the social danger of something (the "risk" side of the "risk/benefit" analysis) is determined quite simply . . . count the dead.  Or look at the stats of what is most likely to kill you.

          I want those "risk" numbers to be smaller, for both cars and guns.  It's a "personal" thing.

          To the extent that addressing the "benefit" side reduces risks I'm for that too.  If more and better public transit would reduce accidents (by reducing automobile use) that's a good argument for public transit.  One of many.  And if better policing and crushing the various "criminal cultures" that lead people to want guns for "self defense" has even a chance of reducing gun deaths (by reducing the number of people who feel a "need" for owning guns), well, that too.  There's a good tie-in there for "gun control" . . . the more of them you take away from the "bad guys" (and the less crime there is) the fewer people will feel a need to own one.  Which, obviously, a lot of people do at present, for some reason . . .

          Consider this incomplete and impractical proposal: few limits on gun ownership, but those owned must be kept in a locked gun safe that sounds an alarm when opened.  You get to defend yourself as needed until the police arrive, be it minutes (good response time guys) or months (after the collapse of civilization, or whatever).  When they get there you just put the gun away till next time.  If you want to take it to the range for practice, or on a hunting trip, or just out for "cleaning" and to look at, call in first to disarm the alarm (and maybe schedule a non-emergency "just checking" visit).  Oh, and "get medieval" on armed criminals and gangs . . .

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 10:22:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site