CDZ Comparing Guns and Motor Vehicles in the US

[jwoodie]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

 

[Arianrhod]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Motor vehicles need to be registered, and their drivers need to be licensed and insured. Are you recommending all of those for guns and gun owners?

 

[HenryBHough]

Actually, nowhere in America are vehicles kept off public highways required to be registered. Also anyone operating a vehicle on their own private property needs no license.

So you would agree, Arianhood, that anyone who keeps their gun at home and uses it only on their own private property should never have to register or license the gun or themselves.

It troubles me, though, that you are off the liberal reservation.....

 

[B. Kidd]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Motor vehicles need to be registered, and their drivers need to be licensed and insured. Are you recommending all of those for guns and gun owners?

Drivin' is a privilege..........gun ownership a right.........please look up the fine details between the two before commenting any furthur. Thanx!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

There's a difference or two that seem obvious tome, and it seems that it ought to be obvious to all, but somehow, most don't seem to realize.

Guns are very simple devices. It really does not take very much skill or training to safely operate one. Just a bit of common sense, and some basic safety rules. The overwhelming vast majority of deaths or injuries involving guns happen intentionally, because one meant intended to cause harm to another.

Automobiles re much more complex to operate, and it does take significant skill and training to operate one safely. And even if you do everything right, things can still go wrong. The overwhelming majority of deaths, injuries, or other harm that arise from the use of motor vehicles is entirely unintentional.


I think this all makes guns and cars not comparable to one another, with respect to what reasonable rules and regulations should apply to their use.

 

[Arianrhod]

Drivin' is a privilege..........gun ownership a right.........please look up the fine details between the two before commenting any furthur. Thanx!

One gross distinction is that no matter how many guns you own, none of them can get you to work.

 

[Arianrhod]

Actually, nowhere in America are vehicles kept off public highways required to be registered. Also anyone operating a vehicle on their own private property needs no license.

So you would agree, Arianhood, that anyone who keeps their gun at home and uses it only on their own private property should never have to register or license the gun or themselves.

It troubles me, though, that you are off the liberal reservation.....

I'd like to revisit this, after the predictable "if the Second Amendment specified my right to bear kumquats, you can bet I'd have a cellar full of 'em" arguments have run out.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Wyatt earp]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Car deaths came way down since the 50's due to safety , while gun deaths remain around the same, it's irresponsible and disingenuous to say gun deaths went up to equal car deaths like some on the left are insinuating.

 

[2aguy]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Motor vehicles need to be registered, and their drivers need to be licensed and insured. Are you recommending all of those for guns and gun owners?

No...guns are a Right, car ownership is not.

 

[2aguy]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Here are the useful stats on this......from the CDC...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Here are the stats on some common types of death....it would be better to start a crusade to teach people how to walk upright...and save them from falling deaths...you would save more lives.....

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

guns, drowning and poisoning....

If you cared about people....you would push to ban the following...


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760

Accidental gun deaths 2013......505

Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39
Total: 69 ( in a country of 320 million people)


2012...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_09.pdf

Then by year accidental gun deaths going down according to CDC final statistics table 10 from 2010-2013...

2010...606
2011...591
2012...548
2013...505
So...accidental gun deaths have been coming down as more people own and carry guns for self defense....now 12.8 million people actually carry guns for self defense......on their person, and the accidental gun death rate is going down, not up....

 

[Elvis Obama]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Here are the useful stats on this......from the CDC...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Here are the stats on some common types of death....it would be better to start a crusade to teach people how to walk upright...and save them from falling deaths...you would save more lives.....

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

guns, drowning and poisoning....

If you cared about people....you would push to ban the following...


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760

Accidental gun deaths 2013......505

Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39
Total: 69 ( in a country of 320 million people)


2012...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_09.pdf

Then by year accidental gun deaths going down according to CDC final statistics table 10 from 2010-2013...

2010...606
2011...591
2012...548
2013...505
So...accidental gun deaths have been coming down as more people own and carry guns for self defense....now 12.8 million people actually carry guns for self defense......on their person, and the accidental gun death rate is going down, not up....

Why are these stats "useful"? Why does the CDC maintain statistics on these different causes of death? So that we can increase the number of deaths? Or is it so that we can reduce the number of deaths?

We have brought highway/driving fatalities down. Banning things is not the answer. We could eliminate driving deaths entirely by eliminating cars, but no one is suggesting such a thing. We have reduced automobile fatalities through better engineering and through public safety awareness and laws.

The US was built on tobacco. It was our first "cash crop" and it saved us in the early years of the colonies. Now? We make war on tobacco. Consumption is way down, due to advertising, safety warnings, etc.. We try to tax it out of existence. No one suggests banning it, however. We educate people so that they realize they don't need it. That they're better off without it. That they stand a better chance of dancing at their grandchildren's weddings if they lay off it.

Guns, though.No, no. We can't do anything like that with guns.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

 

[JoeMoma]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Your false comparison fallacy is a failure.

 

[320 Years of History]

For my own part, I have to say I don't give a tinker's dam about gun suicides. I don't for a few reasons:

• I am of a mind that if someone wants to kill themselves, they will do so and whether they use a gun, a car, bus, truck or train (driven by them or someone else), a cop, drugs, a cliff or bridge, or other means, they will still (attempt) to do so. Thus the means they use is merely, IMO, incidental to the end they desire. If a gun is what's convenient, they'll use a gun. Ditto the other means.
• Folks looking to kill themselves should look to just about anyone other than me if dying isn't really what they want to have happen. Indeed, if one is of a mind to kill oneself, I'd just as soon they be successful.
• I think the only way to dramatically lower the quantity of gun suicides is to constrain access to guns. Gun suicides are, however, the one form of gun violence that I really don't care about; thus that metric is not one I'd raise in a discussion about limiting (or not) access to guns. I don't think gun suicides, or anything having to do with them, belong in a discussion about "gun control" or "gun rights."

That then leaves me considering what I think about the approximately 10K gun deaths that were not suicides. Ten thousand involuntary gun deaths still strikes me as a far cry from "very few" gun deaths, although I realize 10K of them does represent a small proportion of gun deaths in relation to a number of things, e.g., overall gun deaths, overall deaths, the population of gun owners, and a few other domains.

Quite frankly, since there is no recovering from involuntary gun death, I think something needs to be done about it, that is to reduce the quantity of them. The thing that concerns me more than undesired gun deaths is involuntary gun injuries.

As go involuntary gun injuries, I have long thought, and still do, that access to guns is not the sole cause of them, and that the existence and corresponding ease of access to them is certainly a factor, among several, that allows involuntary gun injuries to occurs. Quite simply, if guns, specifically handguns because I don't see there being any real issue with rifles and shotguns, are harder to obtain, fewer people will obtain them. Fewer people having them means fewer people firing them. Also, fewer people legitimately buying guns means there are fewer people from whom criminals (or would be ones) can steal them for use in a crime or steal them to sell to someone else who will use them in a crime.

I honestly believe that the gun violence issue is not directly the consequence of sales of legally purchased firearms. I think it is the result of responsible gun users being irresponsible gun "storers."

When I look for information about stolen guns, I find a peculiar set of facts:

• Gun rights advocates assert, and let's for now accept their claims as being so, that gun-related crimes most often happen using stolen guns.
• There were nearly half a million gun-related violent crimes in 2013. (I've seen higher figures, but no matter, ~500K is enough for here. I don't know of any figures for non-violent, gun-related crime.)
• The ATF reported in 2013 that just under 20K guns were reported lost or stolen.

Now, I don't know about you, but something has to be amiss somewhere for the figures and events to all be so. Surely one or more of the following must be so:

1. A hell of a lot of folks didn't report the loss/theft of their guns.
2. The same guns were used in violent gun-related crimes over, and over, and over, and over again.
3. Violent criminals didn't using stolen/found guns.
4. Lots of legal gun owners transfer their guns to individuals whom they either (1) know to be potentially nefarious/criminal, or (2) have been misled by and thus don't perceive the real risk outcomes associated with the transfer.
5. The overwhelming quantity of guns used in crimes are illegally imported and distributed in the U.S.

Of those options, each of which strikes me as plausible, the first seems the most plausible. It seems the most plausible particularly for folks who, by and large, have one or more guns "just in case," but who otherwise rarely see or use it/them. I can easily imagine such folks not knowing their gun was stolen if they don't have much cause to look at it (in the place they store it). Perhaps such folks forget they have a gun and thus don't report that it's gone. My father certainly forgot for decades that he'd returned from WWII with his service revolver; it sat in box in the back of a closet until, as a 12 or 13 (? -- I recall the event, not my age at the time) year old, I was doing, as many adolescents do, nosed around back there and found it. Perhaps they don't report their firearms missing for some other reasons that I cannot fathom.

I don't care why people don't report their guns as missing; the things that needs to be reconciled are the quantity reported lost/stolen and the quantity of guns used in crimes. Though it is possible, it's hardly likely in my mind that the 20K or so guns reported lost or stolen are the ones used in some 400K+ crimes.

The fourth option strikes me a highly plausible and possible for it essentially says that lots of legal gun owners have poor judgment, are ignorant, are just plain stupid, or some combination of all three. I have oodles of anecdotal evidence, from a wide variety of sources, indicating that many Americans have poor judgment, but that's the only kind of evidence I have.

The next seemingly most plausible one, IMO, is the fifth option. In trying to determine whether illegal trade can account for the discrepancy, I read the following documents:

• Issue Brief: The Movement of Illegal Guns Across the U.S.-Mexico Border
  
• Walking Firearms to Gunrunners: ATF’s Flawed Operation in a Flawed System
  
• 2000 Illegal Weapons Cross US-Mexico Border Per Day: Report
  
• Firearms Commerce Firearms Commerce in the United States United States 2011
  
• "Smart" Guns: A Technological Fix for Regulating the Secondary Market

The thing that struck me is that time and time again, the discussion about cross-border gun trade/traffic has to do with guns moving from the U.S. to Mexico. Assuming that's the primary direction of flow for illegal guns, the fifth option also does not explain some 400K+ guns used in U.S. gun-related crime. I further see little reason to think that the flow is other than from the U.S. to elsewhere seeing as it's easy to buy guns in the U.S. (Apparently background checks are not nearly as comprehensive as the term suggests to me that they would be.)

My Proposed Solution to The Gun Violence Problem:
As for the direction I'd go, it is built upon several "truisms" of which I'm quite confident:

• The government has no business sticking its nose in the "business" of its citizens.
• If you make something illegal, people who are absolutely committed to obtaining that thing and doing the thing for which they "must" have that thing, will bitch, moan, kill, pillage and plunder to get it if their commitment level is high enough. (Opportunistic would be felons will "get over it" and find something else to do or a different too for accomplishing the same final objective.)
• Immature and irresponsible people who have a gun will use it and sooner or later they'll use or store it irresponsibly, and someone will get hurt or killed.
• The vast majority of gun buyers and sellers want to be law abiding citizens.
• The vast majority of gun buyers and sellers do not want to see guns make their way into the hands of felons or would be felons.
• Rights, like privileges, can and should be taken away when one (or many) fails to exercise the utmost responsibility in the exercise of that right and all that pertains to it. Individuals who reach the age of majority have the right to vote, but they lose that right while they are incarcerated for committing a felony. It's silly to think that we could jail lawful gun owners, but it's not silly to place on them the burden for ensuring their lawfully purchased guns don't end up in the hands of unlawful gun users.

Given my belief in the above ideas, I believe the problem in U.S. with guns is the culture, and to some extent not the people who have them. There are places, places no less "sophisticated" than U.S. where damn near everyone has a gun and almost nobody gets accidentally killed by them. (http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the...re-that-works/)

So what would I do? The short is that I'd shift the burden of having easy access to guns to the individuals who own and use them. Ease of access would be directly linked to the behavior demonstrated by gun owners. I would also use social pressure as a motivator for reasonable and responsible gun use.

• Implement permanently temporary, 15 year ban on all pro and anti gun control lobbying activity. I would also require that the money former spent to lobby Congress be directed toward the other initiatives noted below. The point of this is just to allow a generation of young people to grow up where responsible gun use, not the 2nd Amendment politicking, takes center stage with regard to gun use/abuse.
• Begin teaching children from the age of 10 on about responsible and safe gun use. Continue the instruction all the way through high school.
• Require non-gun-oriented self-defense instruction and a defined level of skill at it, for all gun owners except those having certain physical disabilities. This would help lessen folks' penchant for viewing and going to their gun as the self-defense method of first resort.
• Require a defined level of gun skill for all gun owners. Not as high as professional target shooters/snipers, but perhaps something like 80% of that skill level might be okay. The point here is to ensure that to the fullest extent possible, responsible gun owners who must use a gun in self defense have the skills needed so they can rely on their ability to fire disabling shots rather than killing shots, and knowing that such be their skill level, see disablement, not killing, as the go-to first option. (This idea is partly inspired by my understanding of behavioral science, and that knowledge tells me that quite often, that which one intends to do is indeed what one accomplishes. If one intends to kill, one probably will.)
• I'd implement a national "sin tax" on guns that would kick in when the quantity of people who didn't have a gun among their personal effects at the time of their being shot by a gun reaches a given quantity. (I don't know what that quantity should be, but I do know that there is no good reason a gun wielder must fatally shoot a person who does not have a gun.) This approach leaves it to individuals and organizations that support and encourage gun use/ownership to manage the consequences and implications of the tax however they see fit, knowing that their actions could possibly have a direct affect on literally millions of other people.
  
  The tax would remain in effect until that death rate drops to or below the stated quantity, at which the tax would be rescinded until the rate rises above whatever is the rate for the year in question. The quantity would be indexed to population growth. The tax itself would be deliberately hefty: the greater of $500 or 100% of the MSRP (not the actual selling price or discounted price) of the gun.
  
  The measurement quantity above would not include gun suicides.

Sin Tax Example
Write the tax so that it automatically "kicks-on" and "kicks-off" in accordance with observed gun deaths. Structured that way, there's no need to remove it. For example, assuming the "kick-on" quantity is 15K deaths nationally, increased by, say (for easy math), 10% each year (as I said, the "sin tax" I'm proposing would be based on numbers, not percentages, but would be tied to population growth):

• Year 0 --> No tax because it's the baseline year. (15,000 occurred in Year 0; therefore 15K deaths were allowed/allowable.)
• Year 1, deaths do not reach 15K --> No tax. (15,000 x 1.10 = 16,500 -- the quantity of deaths that occur are below the quantity of them allowed for the prior year.)
• Year 2, deaths reach 16,501 by November --> Tax kicks in and applies to all subsequent gun sales that year. It stays in place until deaths fall to less than what was deemed acceptable (rounded down to the nearest integer) for the given year before ("the year before" because we don't know the current year's population growth). (16,500 x 1.10 = 18,150 "allowed" gunshot deaths)
• Year 3, deaths rise to 18,200 --> Tax remains in effect. (18,150 x 1.10 = 19,965 "allowed" gunshot deaths in Year 3, but as 18,200 is still above the 18,150 allowed for Year 2, so the tax remains in effect for Year 4.)
• Year 4, deaths rise to 19,966--> Tax remains in effect. (19,965 x 1.10 = 21,961 "allowed" gunshot deaths for Year 4, but as 19,965 deaths were allowed in Year 3, the tax will again be in effect for Year 5.)
• Year 5, deaths rise to 21,000 --> Tax "kicks-off" because it is below the 21,961 allowed in Year 4. (21,961 x 1.10 = 24,157 "allowed" gunshot deaths)
• Year 6, deaths rise to 23,800 --> Tax remains "off" because the allowed deaths for the 6th year after the "sin tax's" implementation is 24,157, which is based on Year 5's population growth.

As you can see, and as I wrote before, structure the tax so it goes away as behavior changes. Then there's no need to repeal it; when the "sin" isn't manifest, there's no "sin tax." Leave the behavioral change up to citizens and the social and peer pressure they can exert on their fellow citizens. If advocates of "shoot to kill" self defense want to have more people shot and killed, they have the freedom to take fertility pills and f*ck like rabbits if they want to.
There would be no exceptions on this. Why? Because there are no "mulligans" when one is fatally shot.

I see the advantages of the "sin tax" as being strongly correlated with very responsible gun production, transport, sales and ownership:​

• • Gun owners would be very highly inspired to secure their guns.
  • Businesses in the gun supply chain would be highly motivated to take steps to ensure their product doesn't get stolen.
  • It ties easy access to guns to lawful gun owners ensuring that their lawfully purchased guns don't end up in the unlawful secondary gun market, and later get used in a crime.
• I would require the publication on page 2 of every major newspaper the name and city/town of residence for every singe person who causes an increase in the number of deaths and gun-related injuries as described above. (For now, not including cops who have not been convicted of a wrongful gun death.) This is where social pressure gets applied.
• I'd launch a campaign with regard to guns not unlike the one launched and still going re: cigarette smoking. We have created a culture wherein we there are people who smoke, despite regular and graphic reminders of what the risks are, and who do so knowing full and well what the consequences are. The same needs to be happen re: guns and gun use. The smoking cessation efforts begun some 50 years or more ago, have had a clear and positive impact, so we know that long term and well designed campaigns aimed at altering society's attitudes about things work, even if they don't work overnight. At a minimum, similar campaigns could be launched aiming at boosting gun storage security/precautions, responsible gun use, reporting lost or stolen firearms, etc.
  
  (Truly, campaigns like that could be undertaken now, yet for some odd reason, I have yet to see the first commercial on TV advocating any of those things.)
• I would implement a mandatory death penalty with expedited appeals -- meaning they get an appeal, but the appeals process would happen and complete within two years -- for all persons convicted of killing someone with a gun, be it accidental or deliberate. Why no distinction between accidents and intentional murders? Because every accidental gun death could have been prevented if the gun owner had thought enough and been responsible enough to handle the situation differently. There is always some precautionary action they could have taken -- be it in the moment or hours, days, months, or years before -- and that they did not take. Most extremely, every person who shoots another could have chosen not to exercise their right to have a gun.

All this "hoopla" about licensing and whatnot is BS in my mind. Why? Because all that does is find more ways to spend tax revenues and it doesn't actually demonstrate nearly enough.

I have a driver's license. What does that prove? It proves that one day some 45+ years ago, I was able to demonstrate to a driving tester that I could operate a vehicle within the stated rules of the road on that day. Period. Even if I had to retake the driving test every X years, it still doesn't prove that I will not irresponsibly handle my car at any given point in time. The same principle applies to guy certification and gun handling testing.

On the other hand, I don't go to sleep with a fire burning in my fire place. I don't leave the house with the gas stove/oven on. I don't leave my home with the door unlocked and/or windows open. Why don't I do those things? Because the potential risks associated with them have a clear, present and very negative impact on me. For avoidable gunshot deaths to others (because I really don't care if gun owner kill themselves with their own gun(s)), the same circumstances must be effected if we are to realize a sharp reduction in gun-related deaths.

 

[shadow355]

Shadow 355

 

[320 Years of History]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

FWIW, I think that the term "ownership" is often used as a proxy for "possession." I don't think that there is much militating for being more (or less) concerned about illegal use than about curtailing/preventing illegal/unauthorized possession.

 

[Arianrhod]

No...guns are a Right, car ownership is not.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are also rights - rights that are denied someone shot and killed by someone they know, which is far more likely than the "B-but gangbangers!" scenario.

 

[jwoodie]

Rights, like privileges, can and should be taken away when one (or many) fails to exercise the utmost responsibility in the exercise of that right and all that pertains to it. Individuals who reach the age of majority have the right to vote, but they lose that right while they are incarcerated for committing a felony.

This is where I think you are going in the wrong direction: (from Wikipedia)

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.
This means the burden of restricting a fundamental right is on the government; the individual has no duty to prove anything.

 

[2aguy]

No...guns are a Right, car ownership is not.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are also rights - rights that are denied someone shot and killed by someone they know, which is far more likely than the "B-but gangbangers!" scenario.

According to the FBI table 8, there were 8,124 gun homicides in the U.S. in 2014.

According to research conducted by bill clinton and his Department of Justice, Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent crime....and in many cases save lives.........

According to research the majority of all gun murder is committed by violent career criminals, not normal gun owners, and the majority of their victims are other criminals...I have posted the links to this information numerous times.....

So....

8,124 gun murders, vs. 1,500,000 defensive gun uses.

So...it seems to me that 1,500,000 people are defending their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while the majority of the 8,124 gun murders are by and against those violating each others life, liberty and pursuit of happiness........

And gang members make up a huge percent of the criminals shooting each other.......that is a fact.