Guns are bad, cars are not?

[RetiredGySgt]

Remind us again how we should ban private ownership of weapons because of the cost of lives but cars are an economic requirement?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_bi_ge/traffic_crashes_costs

So which is worse?

 

[Bern80]

Remind us again how we should ban private ownership of weapons because of the cost of lives but cars are an economic requirement?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_bi_ge/traffic_crashes_costs

So which is worse?

Now you've done it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The anti-gun loons dont care about the "costs" of anything.

They just like the idea of a disarmed populace, dependent on the government for protection.

IMHO, this stems from their not having the intellectual, emotional or physical capacity to protect themselves and an overwhelming, fear-based need to impose those weaknesses on those of us that do.

 

[Larkinn]

They could cost 5x that, and they would still be an integral part of the US economy. People in this country like to live in the suburbs, work in the city, and don't like to take mass transit. Know why we spend so much in traffic accidents? Because people use cars so much for minor economic things like going to work, going to school, going shopping, etc, etc.

 

[midcan5]

Let me just say I'll take my chances with a nut armed with a car over a nut armed with a gun any day.

But while I love cars for some things, public transportation and a bicycle have always been my mode of transportation.

 

[Bern80]

There's a faulty argument on both sides. The first on RGS's side about an economic requirement is really a moot point because we don't operate on the basis of need where selling goods and services is concerned.

On the other side as RGS noted is the argument that too many people are killed with firearms, thus they should be restriceted or banned, yet far more deaths per capita are the result of automobile accidents and no one screams to have them banned.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There's a faulty argument on both sides. The first on RGS's side about an economic requirement is really a moot point because we don't operate on the basis of need where selling goods and services is concerned.

This is simply the anti-gun loons trying to pass off huge numbers of deaths as acceptable because of the 'necessity' of the automobile. -- never mind that In their next breath, they will damn the automobile and the dependence on foreign oil that they bring.

In essence, the anti-gun loons are willing to accept huge numbers of deaths, so long as they think there is a 'good reason' for them.

What they (deliberately) fail to account for when discounting the necessity of firearms is the number of people that defend themselves, each year, with a firearm.

How many people have stopped an attacker with a car?

 

[manifold]

Remind us again how we should ban private ownership of weapons because of the cost of lives but cars are an economic requirement?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_bi_ge/traffic_crashes_costs

So which is worse?

People who support banning guns are just as naive as people who support the Patriot Act. Every material element of control the people cede to their government is lost forever (barring revolt). So make sure it's really worth it before you willingly sign up for it.

I don't really get the automobile comparison though. I don't see the relevence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't really get the automobile comparison though. I don't see the relevence.

Its an attack on the credibility of the anti-gun loon argument, and an assault on their motive.

If banning guns is justified by the number of people killed by them, why then do the proponents of bannig guns not then also push for the banning of cars, as more people are killed by cars?

 

[manifold]

Its an attack on the credibility of the anti-gun loon argument, and an assault on their motive.

If banning guns is justified by the number of people killed by them, why then do the proponents of bannig guns not then also push for the banning of cars, as more people are killed by cars?

I think we should ban cancer too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think we should ban cancer too.

That's not really the same thing, now is it.

 

[manifold]

That's not really the same thing, now is it.

Of course not silly. I was joking.

But seriously, I still think the car analogy is a bit spurious. It really only works if one assumes that the potential loss of life is the only thing that ever matters in any decision taken. Obviously, it isn't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But seriously, I still think the car analogy is a bit spurious. It really only works if one assumes that the potential loss of life is the only thing that ever matters in any decision taken. Obviously, it isn't.

You might be right -- but 'loss of life' -is- the basis for the argument against guns.

 

[manifold]

You might be right -- but 'loss of life' -is- the basis for the argument against guns.

Yes it is. But I give the loons the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're also implying that the costs associated with this "benefit" are small or immaterial. I happen to disagree with them on both the benefits and costs, but I can at least acknowledge their full position. Regardless of the benefits, only a really stupid retard would think the cost of banning automobiles would be small or immaterial.

 

[midcan5]

You might be right -- but 'loss of life' -is- the basis for the argument against guns.

No, the argument is the same as for any dangerous item, be it a nuclear bomb or cyanide. If we control drugs, hand grenades, howitzers in front yards, or dangerous poisons, we should control guns as well. Too many fools in this world to allow any dangerous item a free place in a stable society.

 

[manifold]

No, the argument is the same as for any dangerous item, be it a nuclear bomb or cyanide. If we control drugs, hand grenades, howitzers in front yards, or dangerous poisons, we should control guns as well. Too many fools in this world to allow any dangerous item a free place in a stable society.

Guns are controlled.

 

[Superlative]

Vehicles are primarily for transportation.

Guns are primarily for shooting people.


Ive never driven a gun anywhere, just because there is a higher death rate associated with vehicles, doesnt make it a valid argument.

If you could buy a car, and its main use was to kill, then yeah sure, ban cars.

Im pretty sure the only thing a gun does is shoot bullets.

Cars on the other hand, are sightly more versatile, and our society accepts the negative risks invloved in their use.

Whats yer point?, why not lump every other thing that kills people into your argument.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Vehicles are primarily for transportation.
Guns are primarily for shooting people.

Both are perfectly valid purposes.
Of course, one has to wonder:
If guns are for killing and cars aren't. why do cars kill more people than guns?

Ive never driven a gun anywhere

You don't say!

just because there is a higher death rate associated with vehicles, doesnt make it a valid argument.

If the standard for banning X is the number of deaths per year caused by X -- it certainly is a valid argument.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, the argument is the same as for any dangerous item, be it a nuclear bomb or cyanide. If we control drugs, hand grenades, howitzers in front yards, or dangerous poisons, we should control guns as well. Too many fools in this world to allow any dangerous item a free place in a stable society.

So... I suggest that we 'control' guns like we 'control' cars.
What do you think?

 

[Superlative]

If the standard for banning X is the number of deaths per year caused by X -- it certainly is a valid argument.

If X kills, then we should ban Y and Z

Clearly we should lump everything that kills into this argument.