View Single Post
Old 01-14-2018, 4:56 PM
TheZouave TheZouave is offline
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 389
iTrader: 28 / 100%

Well, to give you some perspective, lets go point by point:

First, this is a false comparison, you've limited gun deaths to murders, but included all car deaths. A more accurate comparison would be to compare times cars were used to murder people, compared to guns. That statistic isn't nearly as kind. So if we open it to all deaths, they're roughly equal in number (37K car deaths to 34K gun deaths), and yet cars require insurance, licensing, and are subject to a great deal of safety regulations and requirements that guns are not subject to. So, please use accurate comparisons between the two.

Intoxicated driving is already heavily penalized, this is pretty much a straw-man argument, as you could make the same argument by replacing cars with guns: having guns while intoxicated greatly increases the risk of harming others or yourself, therefore guns should be more regulated. Having anything, really, while intoxicated, makes it more dangerous, so regulate everything? Guns, specifically, are meant to cause harm (even as a gun owner and 2nd Amendment supporter, I can recognize and admit that), and that we'd have heavier regulations on items that have an intrinsic use (that were not created explicitly to inflict harm), like cars, is somewhat surprising to me. Do I think a lot of our regulations are BS? Absolutely, but there are lots of states where you can still walk in and buy a gun more easily than getting a drivers license. That's just.... weird? to me.

Pointing at the infinitesimally small number of people killed by terrorists in the US as any type of statistical support for anything is just a non-starter. You're pretty much more likely to get struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist in the US. Also I suspect that your number is incorrect - unless you're counting worldwide, in which case, your number is probably ALSO incorrect, as you're only talking mass casualty events, rather than ongoing warfare, executions, etc. In at least one story (which, admittedly, is not a great source), guns are used in 10% of attacks, but inflict 55% of deaths, there's a pretty compelling case that guns are indeed the most effective weapon, as they're, again, designed to inflict harm.

As for pools, you did, apparently, miss that many jurisdictions require pools to be fenced off, because of large numbers of toddler deaths.

It isn't hypocrisy, its just looking at it from a different perspective. There is a great deal of statistical evidence to contradict what you're saying, if you actually look at the numbers.

Does that mean we need more regulation? Not necessarily - the biggest thing we need is to improve the current regulation (including fixing the background check system, as it has huge, gaping holes - see recent shooting in Texas), and, unfortunately, have some form of mental health restrictions on gun ownership.

I don't want to start a shouting match, but we really need to, as gun owners, be a lot better about understanding the 'other side of the coin' if we want to be effective in fighting additional (unnecessary) regulations. Because they have valid points, and if we refuse to acknowledge/address that, things are going to just get worse.

Originally Posted by DrjonesUSA View Post
Itís pretty easy to lay their hypocrisy bare;

- Ask them if they think that since cars kill far, far more people each year than guns (~40,000 per year car deaths vs. ~10,000 murders by gun), that cars should be banned or at least further regulated. I mean, there is no background check / criminal history check required to buy a car.

- Ask them if they think that since intoxicated driving needlessly kills people, if alcohol & drugs should be banned or at least further regulated, and the brakes put on pot legalization. Of course as pot has been made easier to get in various states, cases of driving while stoned have increased, along with crashes caused by DWI.

- Ask them if they think that since cars & trucks are used by terrorists to kill more people than they do with guns, if they should be banned or further regulated.

Theyíll look at you funny, prob say something about cars & trucks serving a greater societal purpose than guns, blah, blah blah...

The point is, they donít care about saving lives, they just donít understand / are ignorant of, or are bigoted against guns.

I mean, for decades, the #1 cause of death among children has been drowning - did I miss all the calls to ban pools and 5 gallon buckets?
Reply With Quote