After listening to Lord Obama, Her Excellency Queen Hillary, and like minded politicians yesterday on their gun control rants I wondered once again if they are really that ignorant of statistics and logic, or that they simply count on enough of their constituents to be so..... In either case, I wanted to try some liberal logic myself (libgic?).... Vehicles in USA = 253,000,000 Deaths caused by vehicles accidents = 33,000 Guns in America (private) = 310,000,000 Deaths caused by guns also = 33,000 (2/3's of these are suicides, which should not count, but the liberals would count them so I will too) Cars per death = 7666 Guns per death = 9394 Cars kill 22% more people than guns. Obviously conclusion is that we need more "car control" laws....in fact, we should ban cars altogether......
if car owners were perceived to mainly be white conservative males and the AAA was a group that mainly supported Republican candidates, I can almost guarantee that Democrats and socialists, marxists and progressives would be for massive restrictions on car owners
The primary argument that will be presented when confronted with these statistics, assuming an argument is presented at all, will likely be that motor vehicles are not designed for facilitating murders, and have beneficial purposes that society cannot survive without.
Playing a little Devil's advocate here, but I can't help it when I see this counter-argument. I support a person's right to own guns. Always have. But the analogy that we should ban cars because people die in automobile related deaths too is hardly a proper comparison because you're comparing things from two completely separate categories. Cars are transportation. Their primary purpose is to get people or things from point A to point B. Deaths can result from misoperation or just plain bad luck due to conditions outside the driver's control. Guns exist to cause harm. That is the only thing they do. Whether you're pointing it at a clay pigeon, a real pigeon, or a person, the only thing that gun will ever accomplish is firing a projectile with a lot of force and speed to damage or destroy whatever you're shooting at. Even operated correctly, they are still tools of destruction. Comparing automobiles with guns is like comparing refrigerators with rocks. Don't make silly arguments or you make the gun grabbers look smart.
We do and states have enacted more regulations in recent decades. Used to be you could get full driving privileges when you were 16 in my state. Not anymore. We have been trying to get you people on board with mass transit, high speed rail, etc forever. Glad to see it is working. Welcome to the sunny side.
or a person running into a crowd of people just to kill them..this has happened many times over the years
Why are right wing loons obsessed with applying descriptors like "Lord" and "Queen" to democrat politicians? From almost any perspective, right wingers ride the dicks of their politicians just as hard if not harder than lefties.
I'm not for strong gun control, but I don't think your argument says much. Car deaths would have more to do with hours driven than number of cars, and even then it depends on how it is driven. Same for guns - some are just locked in cases and most never fired in anger. The bottom line for policies is to see if they have the indended effect without overriding unintended consequences. The end we're looking for isn't even gun deaths, but total deaths. Gun laws exist to try to attempt to reduce untimely deaths. The question isn't whether guns are bad, or if we have too many of them, but if policies directed at them accomplish the goal of reducing death. As far as I know, the answer is no.
Guns exist to prevent harm. It is those "misoperating" the guns that cause harm. Those operating them correctly stop them.
Because his Lordship seems to feel he can routinely ignore both the Constitution and his Oath of Office. Both were designed to take us away from a monarchy.
No, I'm sorry, that just doesn't work. Guns don't prevent harm, they cause it. That's what does the "stopping" that you're talking about. If they didn't cause harm, they wouldn't be used for self defense. People with guns can use them to prevent harm, but the function of a gun does not change based on the morality of the person using it. It expels a projectile with a high amount of force intended to damage or kill whatever it strikes. That is the function of a gun. It's a tool whose purpose is to cause destruction when used. That's why you can't compare them to cars.
That is why the argument as to why motor vehicle deaths are treated differently, is so lacking in a basis of logic. Whenever the argument is made, that the lack of a purpose built killing design exists in motor vehicles, makes their deaths different, they are essentially saying that thousands of unnecessary deaths every year are acceptable, simply because trying to prevent them would cause more societal harm than good. In simpler terms, those lives lost do not matter, and carry no importance.
The function of a firearm doesn't change with the morality of the operator. However weather it is used for destruction does depend on the morality of the user. Evidence of this is proven by the hundreds of millions of guns that have destroyed nothing.
but what is interesting is that cars are not intended to "harm" yet far more people are harmed unintentionally with cars, than by intentional harm with guns. that is why guns are actually very safe since accidental harm with firearms is minuscule given the number and use of them
WRONG.Fire arms are designed for self defense and to prevent harm. Guns save lives. Lots of innocent lives.
First was the cannon. Do you think the cannon was invented to be on offensive? Pretty hard to tote around to be an offensive weapon. The first firearm was a hand held cannon, and again it was designed to keep the enemy from advancing. In other words it was a defensive weapon that was made to save the lives of what would be otherwise victims.
You're entirely correct. I'm not talking about the abstract purpose that humans will use it for, I'm talking about the way a gun actually functions. No matter the intent of the user, the gun itself is designed to fire something at high speed at something else in an effort to cause harm or death when the projectile hits it's target. It's designed to deliver force, which can easily be lethal force. That's it's only function. That's all a gun will ever be used to do, no matter why the person holding it is pulling the trigger. That's why you can't compare gun deaths with automobiles. That bad analogy is what I was responding to in this thread. I'm not trying to make an argument for taking anybody's guns away or making a case for gun control in general. I told the OP not to make bad arguments because it makes the gun grabbers look smart.
How does it do that? By yelling at them? By talking softly? By playing memorizing music? No. Cannons, hand cannons and every other firearm are able to do what you say because of what happens when you pull the trigger. That action, the one you initiate when you pull the trigger, will always be the same. Firing a projectile with a high degree of damaging force. If guns didn't do that, people wouldn't be able to use them as defensive weapons, as threats, or for anything. That use is the only action a gun is designed to do. It's the only way it functions. That's why you can't compare it to automobiles. That's all I'm saying. You can't compare automobile deaths to firearm deaths. They are two entirely different things. - - - Updated - - - I'm not making an argument against guns, I'm making an argument against comparing automobiles to guns. - - - Updated - - - No they aren't saying that. They are saying that although both of these things involves death, they are not related beyond that. If you only want to list things that involve death, go ahead and include them together. But beyond that, you can't compare a firearm to a car if you want to make a cogent argument either for or against guns. The argument, no matter what direction you're taking it, is wrong and stupid.
Here's a better argument. Cars kill way too many people, we should ban them and start using horses. Those are much safer.
Didn't laws about safety regulations for cars get passed and increased funding for anti-drink driving campaigns as well? What happened to the number of vehicle accidents since then? Hasn't it gone down in the almost 40 years since MADD lobbied Congress for reforms? This is why during the Gun control debate, Pro-Gun people, do not mention cars.
Not drunks, alcoholics or any other drug addicts. People who will abuse a substance are going to be a greater threat to themselves or others then one person who casually drinks.
