How would you counter this?

[dwh100]

I have been in an online debate about 2A rights and the discussion has merged to the "car users kill more than guns users" platform. As I posted that antis should worry more about automobile owners than firearm owners, this point was made:

>>"It would be interesting to do the following study - it would be VERY hard, so let's make it somewhat of a "thought experiment".

Let's add up all the hours in the country where people HOLD their gun. Let's call this gun hours. This is because guns not in someone's hands RARELY fires!

Let do the same with cars. Add all those hours when people are IN their car. Let's call these car hours.

Now, I would actually bet that the yearly ratio of gun deaths to gun hours is MUCH higher then the car deaths to car hours.

So, are we being hypocritical now?">>

I've got to admit it has stumped me for a bit. How would you counter?

[CavTrooper]

Id think you would have to use the "carrying a gun" hours, not "holding" hours. The time a firearm is accessible, CCW, open carry, police, hunting, all of those things, would have to be factored.

[bbguns44]

Only deaths or do injuries/crashes count ?

I fondle my guns a lot at home & I'll bet other gun owners do the same
so I'm not so sure the ratio comes out the way he expects.

[M. D. Van Norman]

[jamesob]

ok, how many people violate the law daily driving a car that ends up in a fatal crash compared to people violating the law with a firearm daily that ends up in a fatality? it's all about the people violating the laws and not the number of hours that somebody drives or shoots a gun.

[ZRX61]

I've got to admit it has stumped me for a bit. How would you counter?

I'd run em over

[GW]

Consider all the "gun hours" at the local range or out in the sticks. Police practicing and folks dry-practicing or even handling guns at a friends house or gun shop

The real problem with the anti's hypothesis is that gun hours would be impossible to determine. So just say that the gun deaths per gun hours would come in way below driving deaths let that fruitcake refute your argument with proof.
In short, throw the ball back in her court, demand she prove that guns are worse and then ask her to prove unicorns carry ipods or something
She won't be able to and the she gets to watch her own argument fizzle and you can ridicule her for even trying that tack if you wish.

I'm sure someone who has just taken a logic or debate course has a name for this anti's approach but basically its BS

Sooo... have fun dreaming up other fantastical things she can prove for you

[croc4]

Show me the data!, until he can state hard facts looks like he is trying to "play" you, if he does not have hard data then he is talking out of his *****, trying to force you to conceed, being an anti, how does he know the gun habits of the pro gunners?, (hint), he has no F***** clue!

Can he even state the number of deaths/injuries from automobiles?, I doubt it.


Bottom line, you will never, never convince him or any anti to change their stance on guns, you only get so much time, why waste it on this idiot?


Croc4

[foxtrotuniformlima]

If I was allowed to by law, my gun hours would be far greater than my car hours. But I'm not. So it is not a valid comparison.

[trinydex]

there's no way he'd win that thought experiment. the time spent in cars is minimal. amory lovens is quoted as saying 2% of our time is spent in a car (this is in relation to using hybrid cars as a power grid when plugged in during the other 98% of the time cars are just parked)

that and ALL the lethal car accidents. don't they say every 15 minutes (there was a program called every 15 minutes when i was in high school) a drunk driver kills someone or something?

think of all the hours people are at the range. you don't go to the range for 2% of your day... it's more like 8% of your day and you're presumably holding guns the whole time. then there's the cleaning part which is where some people unfortunately do get killed by honest accident... well cleaning sessions take how long? that's gotta be another 8% of the day.

do the numbers, i don't think he has ****.

[ChessRatz]

I'd run em over

That was hilarious

[Thefeeder]

Holding a gun? I've hunted for 40 years...20 days a year hunting....average 6 hours per hunt

40x20x6=4800 hours holding

For argument sake, another 4800 at a range of some kind, cleaning, shopping.....

9600 hours holding a firearm...0.0 accedents

Drove a car 33 years.... average 2 HRS per day

2x365x33= 24,090 ......5 accedents...... 1 in 4818 hours

Well there is the math

[ohsmily]

Why are you debating guns v. cars? There is no mention of cars in the Constitution. There is a whole Amendment dedicated to guns (arms).

Also, the number of deaths caused by guns shouldn't even be an issue. If you must, think of them as a necessary evil in order for the people to wield power against their government.

[hoffmang]

The entire point of having a firearm is not ever having to use it. How many fire extenguisher hours does the guy on the other side have and since the answer is 0, shouldn't we ban fire extenguishers?

-Gene

[DarkHorse]

Tell this guy that's he reverting to hypothetical experiments that he thinks would work out in his favor because all of the REAL, non-hypothetical studies have proven your point, and he's fishing for something that sounds good but can't be disproven because it's ludicrous.

We don't live in a "thought" world, we live in the real world, so use real statistics to show this guy he is wrong...

http://www.americanfirearms.org/images/Chart__big.gif

(This source is obviously not complete, as it stops at age 44)

No matter what source you use, he will have a reason why that source is no good, which mainly comes down to the fact that it doesn't support his position so it must be wrong. This guy is simply trying to think of situations that cannot be verified one way or another in order to draw attention away from what has been proven. In essence, he is using the same tactic that all anti-gunners do, and that is to appeal to emotion instead of reason, because reason shows them to be wrong. Reason requires you think about what you are saying and have evidence to back it up, whereas emotional arguments just need to sound good and tug at people's heartstrings in order to succeed.

"Passion in any argument is inversely proportional to the amount of real information advanced." (Benford's Law of COntroversy)
In other words, the more passionately a person argues about a subject, the less likely they have any factual evidence to back up their claims.

An opinion can be argued with; a conviction is best shot.
--T.E. Lawrence--

Lock and load